Hi Ian
As far as I know, 'dose units' are not scientific units as such; they're
measures of discrete objects (including 'puffs' etc), which don't fit
into a clean grammar of scientific units, and trying to do so will just
ruin the former.
We do of course need dose units, but we need a better way of modelling
them - my view is that they should not be treated as if they were
'units' in the usual sense.
The relevant SNOMED codes
<http://browser.ihtsdotools.org/?perspective=full&conceptId1=408102007&edition=en-edition&release=v20160131&server=http://browser.ihtsdotools.org/api/snomed&langRefset=900000000000509007>
seem to be these 'unit of product usage' codes, which is the correct
kind of description.
What is the current problem/issue with modelling 'dose units' in
archetypes in fact? It looks to me like the current modelling approach
(similar to FHIR) represents these elements in a reasonable way.
- thomas
On 18/05/2016 10:22, Ian McNicoll wrote:
Hi Grahame,
For the use case raised, I agree, but there other considerations e.g.
Dose units and other non-UCUM code use - in the UK there is a desire
to use SNOMED terms for dose units.
FHIR has human + code + system for quantity units, I think?
Ian
_______________________________________________
openEHR-technical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
