Thanks Pat for the article reference.
The excerpt below from the article summarizes height measurement issues.
In this age of technology, especially in clinics and hospitals,
measurements for height and time of observation can easily be incorporated in
weight scales and, readouts/printouts or data can be sent automatically to the
patient's automated records.
This standardization would eliminate differences in technician measurement
procedures and would speed taking measurements and record-keeping while
reducing the number of errors.
Clinic and hospital record-keeping now is highly automated in many places
and automation is becoming more widespread. So why complicate record keeping
with a unit which requires a decimal point? Use of millimeters is still the
most straight forward for height as decimal points are not needed. Millimeters
are and should be used for other parts of the human body. So use millimeters
for height.
Exercise machines already have various types of electronic readouts so
including automated height with weight measurements in scales should not be a
problem. Many scales already have electronic displays. This would eliminate
discrepancies and provide consistency as well as improved accuracy.
Time of measurement could be included to address the issues mentioned in the
article. This approach to measurement also would lend itself for research
purposes. Be consistent.
Pat, your use of the word "clumsily" summarizes the issue and my point very
well.
Stan Doore
"These observations must have implications in the interpretation of serial
height measurements of children. In theory, observations should be undertaken
at approximately the same time of day and following a similar pattem of
activity, but certainly not immediately after getting out of bed. In the clinic
these circumstances frequently apply, but when this is not the case the
possibility of an error due to this variation, and not necessarily to accuracy
of measurement, should be considered."
----- Original Message -----
From: Pat Naughtin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: [USMA:45467] Re: Fw: default units for height
Dear Stan and All,
On the issue of precision, you might like to see this letter from a
paediatrician. The graph shows daily height variations from 8 mm/day to 28
mm/day (clumsily expressed here as 0.8 cm/day and 2.8 cm/day).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the forthcoming book, Metrication Leaders Guide.
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric
system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each
year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides
services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for
commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA,
NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See
http://www.metricationmatters.com for more metrication information, contact Pat
at pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com or to get the free 'Metrication matters'
newsletter go to: http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter to subscribe.
On 2009/07/30, at 8:35 PM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
Millimeters rather than centimeters or meters should be used for the
default for height. Millimeters has a number of advantages even though
millimeters it may imply more precision. Use of millimeters only for height
avoids complexity and confusion.
Meters and centimeters require a decimal point or four printing/writing
positions which millimeters would take anyway. So, there is no advantage in
using either meters or centimeters. The use of meters and centimeters only
adds to the confusion with a mixture of units (m. cm, mm) whereas the use of
millimeters only does not.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Potts
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:51 PM
Subject: [USMA:45453] Re: Fw: default units for height
Robert:
I prefer to give my height in meters. It's consistent with the
quasi-informal "rule of 1000" and with the BMI formula (m/h²).
The trouble with millimeters, in this case, is that they tend to imply a
degree of precision that is neither present nor required.
For engineering and construction (cf. the Australian example),
millimeters are fine. Drawings needn't show any units for linear dimensions.
Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Potts
WFP Consulting
Roseville, CA
http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On
Behalf Of Robert H. Bushnell
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:09
To: U.S. Metric Association
Cc: usma@colostate.edu
Subject: [USMA:45452] Re: Fw: default units for height
It is good of you to promote metric height numbers.
However, I do not like centimeter.
I want schools to stop teaching and using centimeter.
I also want schools to stop teaching inch-pound numbers.
So, I want height to be in millimeters.
The number can be to the nearest 10 millimeters.
Body mass index BMI uses height in meters, often shown with
two decimal places, that is, to centimeter resolution. I say
we should get used to millimeter height and make it a habit
to shift to meters for BMI.
Thanks for all your good work.
Robert Bushnell
On Jul 29, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Paul Trusten wrote:
Another small victory for the metric system in heathcare! I wote to
the author of Global RPh, an extremely useful Web site for pharmacists' drug
information. Within its armaementarium are quite a number of calculators for
things like body service area, creatinine clearance, and other values. When
you first get to each of these calculators, the default measurement units are
kilograms for weight, but INCHES for height! This might be dangerous! So,
yesterday, I finally broke down and wrote the author, asking him to please
change the default for height to centimeters. As you can see, he agreed.
----- Original Message -----
From: D. McAuley, GlobalRPh
To: trus...@grandecom.net
Sent: 29 July, 2009 06:42
Subject: Re: default units for height
Hello Paul,
In the past I tried to keep everyone happy.... however, I think
its time
to have default metric selections. It will probably be some
time next
week before these changes are made.
Thank you for the suggestion....
Dave
-----------------------------------------------
David McAuley, Pharm.D., R.Ph.
GlobalRPh Inc.
ad...@globalrph.com
-----------------------------------------------
--- On Mon, 7/27/09, trus...@grandecom.net
<trus...@grandecom.net> wrote:
From: trus...@grandecom.net <trus...@grandecom.net>
Subject: default units for height
To: webmas...@globalrph.com
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 6:38 PM
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted
by
(trus...@grandecom.net) on Monday, July 27, 2009 at 20:38:10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
subject1: Globalrph form
MessageType: Suggestion
comments: On your calculators, please consider setting your
Web sites default units for patient height to centimeters instead of inches.
Your default units for weight are in kilograms. Only metric units should be
used for patient parameters.
name: Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
verifyemail: trus...@grandecom.net
Telephone: (432)528-7714
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMOTE_ADDR: 12.154.32.242
HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR
3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Stan and All,
On the issue of precision, you might like to see this letter from a
paediatrician. The graph shows daily height variations from 8 mm/day
to 28 mm/day (clumsily expressed here as 0.8 cm/day and 2.8 cm/day).
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
Author of the forthcoming book, Metrication Leaders Guide.
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008
Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has
helped thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the
modern metric system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they
now save thousands each year when buying, processing, or selling for
their businesses. Pat provides services and resources for many
different trades, crafts, and professions for commercial, industrial
and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and in the USA.
Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, NIST,
and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. See
http://www.metricationmatters.com
for more metrication information, contact Pat at
pat.naugh...@metricationmatters.com
or to get the free 'Metrication matters' newsletter go to:
http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
to subscribe.
On 2009/07/30, at 8:35 PM, STANLEY DOORE wrote:
> Millimeters rather than centimeters or meters should be used for
> the default for height. Millimeters has a number of advantages even
> though millimeters it may imply more precision. Use of millimeters
> only for height avoids complexity and confusion.
> Meters and centimeters require a decimal point or four printing/
> writing positions which millimeters would take anyway. So, there is
> no advantage in using either meters or centimeters. The use of
> meters and centimeters only adds to the confusion with a mixture of
> units (m. cm, mm) whereas the use of millimeters only does not.
> Stan Doore
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bill Potts
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:51 PM
> Subject: [USMA:45453] Re: Fw: default units for height
>
> Robert:
>
> I prefer to give my height in meters. It's consistent with the quasi-
> informal "rule of 1000" and with the BMI formula (m/h²).
>
> The trouble with millimeters, in this case, is that they tend to
> imply a degree of precision that is neither present nor required.
>
> For engineering and construction (cf. the Australian example),
> millimeters are fine. Drawings needn't show any units for linear
> dimensions.
>
> Bill
> Bill Potts
> WFP Consulting
> Roseville, CA
> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator]
>
> From: owner-u...@colostate.edu [mailto:owner-u...@colostate.edu] On
> Behalf Of Robert H. Bushnell
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 11:09
> To: U.S. Metric Association
> Cc: usma@colostate.edu
> Subject: [USMA:45452] Re: Fw: default units for height
>
> It is good of you to promote metric height numbers.
> However, I do not like centimeter.
> I want schools to stop teaching and using centimeter.
> I also want schools to stop teaching inch-pound numbers.
> So, I want height to be in millimeters.
>
> The number can be to the nearest 10 millimeters.
> Body mass index BMI uses height in meters, often shown with
> two decimal places, that is, to centimeter resolution. I say
> we should get used to millimeter height and make it a habit
> to shift to meters for BMI.
>
> Thanks for all your good work.
> Robert Bushnell
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Paul Trusten wrote:
>
>> Another small victory for the metric system in heathcare! I wote to
>> the author of Global RPh, an extremely useful Web site for
>> pharmacists' drug information. Within its armaementarium are quite
>> a number of calculators for things like body service area,
>> creatinine clearance, and other values. When you first get to each
>> of these calculators, the default measurement units are kilograms
>> for weight, but INCHES for height! This might be dangerous! So,
>> yesterday, I finally broke down and wrote the author, asking him to
>> please change the default for height to centimeters. As you can
>> see, he agreed.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: D. McAuley, GlobalRPh
>> To: trus...@grandecom.net
>> Sent: 29 July, 2009 06:42
>> Subject: Re: default units for height
>>
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> In the past I tried to keep everyone happy.... however, I think its
>> time
>> to have default metric selections. It will probably be some time
>> next
>> week before these changes are made.
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestion....
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> David McAuley, Pharm.D., R.Ph.
>> GlobalRPh Inc.
>> ad...@globalrph.com
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> --- On Mon, 7/27/09, trus...@grandecom.net <trus...@grandecom.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> From: trus...@grandecom.net <trus...@grandecom.net>
>> Subject: default units for height
>> To: webmas...@globalrph.com
>> Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 6:38 PM
>>
>> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
>> (trus...@grandecom.net) on Monday, July 27, 2009 at 20:38:10
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> subject1: Globalrph form
>>
>> MessageType: Suggestion
>>
>> comments: On your calculators, please consider setting your Web
>> sites default units for patient height to centimeters instead of
>> inches. Your default units for weight are in kilograms. Only metric
>> units should be used for patient parameters.
>>
>> name: Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
>>
>> verifyemail: trus...@grandecom.net
>>
>> Telephone: (432)528-7714
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> REMOTE_ADDR: 12.154.32.242
>> HTTP_USER_AGENT: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT
>> 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR
>> 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET
>> CLR 3.5.30729; InfoPath.2)
>
>
