Hi, <xx or >yy What does it mean?
To my mind it semantically means a state of exception. Meaning not only that the measurement is <xx or >yy but that it is unmeasurable. If this reasoning is true than each archetype with a measurement needs an exception attribute. In general this will be true in many more circumstances. Each possible statement (data item and/or archetype) can have a few states: requested/expected- unrequested/not expected (eg expected is TSH measurement but unrequested and unexpected the response is TSH>2000 as an indication of exception) As exception there are at least two possibilities: known-unknown. (eg RR 120/unknown mmHg. TSH was measured and presented but it must not be considered a real result it is in doubt) true-untrue (eg I measured RR 60/80 this measurement I consider untrue, but it was that was was measured. TSH >2000 but is untrue because it was unmeasurable) Gerard -- <private> -- Gerard Freriks, arts Huigsloterdijk 378 2158 LR Buitenkaag The Netherlands T: +31 252 544896 M: +31 654 792800 On 1-mrt-2006, at 2:41, Sam Heard wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We want to report an issue that has arisen in data processing in > Australia. > > The issue is the somewhat random ability of systems to report a >xx > or <yy range where a quantity is expected - there are still units > and still a normal range. This is common with TSH and GFR - but can > turn up in unexpected instances - e.g. we had a baby with a HCO3 of > <5 mmol/L. This can be dealt with at present by substituting an > interval - but it is a bit wierd as there is still a normal range - > it kind of works as there is only a lower or upper value of the > interval and so this single quantity can carry the normal range. > > The point is that it is really a point measurement that is outside > the range of the measuring device. Also, it means that we will have > to have archetypes that allow multiple datatypes for all quantities > that could conceivably be measured in this way. > > The alternative is to consider a DV_QUANTITY_RANGE that inherits > from DV_QUANTITY - it still has only one value - but now it has the > ability to set this as the upper or lower value - and also whether > this number is included or not. > > The advantage is that there would still be a number to graph and > this data type could always be substituted for a DV_QUANTITY (ie > without archetyping). > > I wonder what others think. > > Cheers, Sam > -- > Dr. Sam Heard > MBBS, FRACGP, MRCGP, DRCOG, FACHI > > CEO and Clinical Director > Ocean Informatics Pty. Ltd. > Adjunct Professor, Health Informatics, Central Queensland University > Senior Visiting Research Fellow, CHIME, University College London > Chair, Standards Australia, EHR Working Group (IT14-9-2) > Ph: +61 (0)4 1783 8808 > Fx: +61 (0)8 8948 0215 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/private/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20060301/7385b9e6/attachment.html>
