SV: ECG archetype advice required

Ivar Yrke iyr at
Wed Sep 5 03:38:27 EDT 2018

1/min, definitely!

Cardiac output is measured as liters/minute. Liters of what? We could have used the unit liters{blood}/minute, but I have never seen that done. It is considered obvious from the context. Likewise with other units. Velocity is measure as meters/second, not meters{travelled}/second. One could argue that meters{travelled} makes it clear that it is not meters{altitude}, but that is generally considered obvious from the context.

For some reason there is this temptation to add a fictive unit ({beats}, {count} etc.) when the number itself is unit less. This is not necessary. The context is always sufficient, just like in the cases that have a unit. Let us cut through the unclarity of UCUM and keep it simple and basic.

My argument is probably influenced by my background as a physicist. But if no one has objected to 1/min in pulse/heartbeat, then I see no reason to deviate from the basics in ECG or to modify pulse/heartbeat.

Vennlig hilsen
Ivar Yrke
Senior systemutvikler
Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
Mobil +47 90 78 89 33

Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:openehr-clinical-bounces at] På vegne av Heather Leslie
Sendt: 5. september 2018 08:00
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions <openehr-clinical at>
Emne: ECG archetype advice required

Hi everyone,

I've just been facilitating the most recent reviews on the ECG archetype and would appreciate some advice on two issues.

The current atrial and ventricular rates are modelled as a Quantity (frequency) ie 1/min. However UCUM is unclear and there seems to be a few options, including {Beats}/min, {beats}/min and {H.B} is represented in another context, so maybe {H.B}/min is valid as well. Note that if we decide that it is appropriate to modify to one of these specific UCUM units, then to be consistent we will need to consider modifying the Pulse/heartbeat OBSERVATION as well - currently also modelled as a frequency of 1/min.

In addition, I'd appreciate some advice as to how we could get access to the latest draft of the ISO/IEEE standard for ECG - I think it is ISO/IEEE 11073-10406. We'd like to make sure there is alignment between the standard and the archetype before further reviews.

Kind regards


Dr Heather Leslie
M +61 418 966 670
Skype: heatherleslie
Twitter: @atomicainfo, @clinicalmodels & @omowizard
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D444F9.5724C500]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7056 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list