### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

f *Bakke, Silje Ljosland > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:53 PM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > *Subject:* RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % > > > > I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

PM > *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < > openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> > *Subject:* RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % > > > > I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand > why proportion is the correct data type for O2 leve

### RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

Anyone…? Regards, Silje From: openEHR-technical On Behalf Of Bakke, Silje Ljosland Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:53 PM To: For openEHR technical discussions Subject: RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % I still don’t understand if we have a conclusion. And I don’t understand why

### RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

discussions Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will have been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in patient data - and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

Simple answer - loads of real data - pulse_oximetry and Oxygen levels will have been recorded hundreds of thousands if not millions of times in patient data - and Proportion *is* the correct datatype for O2 levels. Ian Dr Ian McNicoll mobile +44 (0)775 209 7859 office +44 (0)1536 414994 skype:

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

one thing to note: DV_PROPORTION is a more complex data structure. I would be tempted to try to determine what use has been made of this archetype so far - i.e. in creating real data. If no real data has been created, then it could in theory be changed. - thomas On 07/01/2019 12:11, Ian

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

Original Message- > From: openEHR-technical On > Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 3:36 PM > To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % > > > On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote: >

### RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

: openEHR-technical On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2019 3:36 PM To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote: > There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels > va

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

On 05/01/2019 12:56, Ian McNicoll wrote: There is a very clear use-case for having it there - O2 levels variably and equivalently described a FiO2 which is a unitary proportion or percent. I think we need to keep it for that reason if no other. So in that case we need to upgrade the

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

; Silje > > -Original Message- > From: openEHR-technical > On Behalf Of Thomas Beale > Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM > To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org > Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % > > > On 03/01/2019 08:37

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

penEHR-technical On Behalf Of Thomas Beale Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:38 PM To: openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote: I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a prope

### RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

@lists.openehr.org Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote: > I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is > not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT. > > DV_PROPORTION should be only used w

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

On 03/01/2019 08:37, David Moner wrote: I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT. DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

t;> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> *Silje* >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* openEHR-clinical *On >>> Behalf Of *David Moner >>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM >>> *To:* For openEHR technical disc

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

hursday, January 3, 2019 9:37 AM >> *To:* For openEHR technical discussions < >> openehr-technical@lists.openehr.org> >> *Cc:* For openEHR clinical discussions ( >> openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) >> *Subject:* Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % >> &

### RE: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

(openehr-clini...@lists.openehr.org) Subject: Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for % I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT. DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator

### Re: DV_PROPORTION vs DV_QUANTITY for %

I think DV_QUANTITY is the option here. Someone could argue that % is not a proper unit, but it is, both in UCUM and SNOMED CT. DV_PROPORTION should be only used when you want to maintain the numerator and denominator explicitly separated, as a fraction, which should not be the case with