Melvin Reynolds wrote: > A side-note to this discussion: > > The EN/ISO 11073 device comms standards provide for device-originated > status flags of various sorts to be communicated. > > This does not of course get around the always-erroneous first NIBP > reading, misplaced cuff - or any manual readings. > > Nor, unless one resorts to further processing (as Ed mentioned in an > earlier mail) does it get around the correct reading and communication > of misleading data (such as 'positional' or 'damped' invasive lines). > > However, it might lend weight to the argument for references to > persistent representations of native device data rather than embedding > interpretations of it? > > Regards, > > Melvin. > > > Melvin,
I agree with this, and it is something we have been conscious of in the past, and is one of the reasons you can have a summarised / simplified form of data inline in the openEHR EHR, with a link to an external source such as a different system that collect vital signs raw device output, or PACS images. My feeling from this discussion is that there may indeed be some merit in marking devices and / or provider organsiations in a demographic database 'data reliability' markers, that can then be used to filter the main EHR data - then you could run queries that e.g. compared the variance or SD when measurements from a certain device were out or in, and probably fairly quickly isolate an unreliable / badly calibrated device. You could even calibrate properly in retrospect and potentially overwrite the original values recoded over time with adjusted values taking into account proper calibration. - thomas
