# Archetype blood_pressure: Data <-> State <-> Protocol - correlation **Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156) **Created:** 2006-09-29 13:31 UTC **Views:** 15 **Replies:** 6 **URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetype-blood-pressure-data-state-protocol-correlation/14583 --- ## Post #1 by @Christoph_Rinner Hi, I am writing my diploma thesis at the Vienna Medical University\. I have two questions concerning the openEHR\-EHR\-OBSERVATION\.blood\_pressure\.v1 Archetype \(Date 22/03/2006\) and would be very thankful if someone could answer them briefly\. 1st: I read in the "The openEHR Reference Model \- EHR Information Model" \(openehr\_ehr\_im\.pdf Revision: 5\.1\.0\) in chapter "8\.2\.3\.4 Two ways of Recording State" that there are two ways to record States inside a History\. In this Blood pressure measurement Archetype they have chosen the way where the state is recorded outside data History\. Isn´t it necessary to correlate a blood pressure measurement \[at0003\] to a position \[at0008\] \(Systolic: 120, Diastolic: 80, Position: Standing\)? What is the medical reason for modelling it like that? Even if it is made the other way the problem still occurs with the protocol\. When we try to match an Instrument \[at0012\] \(from Protocol\) to a certain blood pressure measurement \(Systolic: 120, Diastolic: 80, Instrument: XYZ\) we don´t know which instrument belongs to which blood pressure\. Am I wrong? Is there a way to correlate them? Is there no need to correlate them? 2nd: Why does the "state" begin with an ITEM\_LIST\[at0007\] and not with a History? In the documentation it looks as if "state" and "data" have the same structure\. \(http://www.openehr.org/uml/release-1.0/Printable/Printable.html#_9_0_76d0249_1109066126764_414607_2244) Thanks a lot in advance\. Christoph Rinner --- ## Post #2 by @thomas.beale Christoph Rinner wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing my diploma thesis at the Vienna Medical University\. I have > two questions concerning the openEHR\-EHR\-OBSERVATION\.blood\_pressure\.v1 > Archetype \(Date 22/03/2006\) and would be very thankful if someone could > answer them briefly\. > > 1st: > I read in the "The openEHR Reference Model \- EHR Information Model" > \(openehr\_ehr\_im\.pdf Revision: 5\.1\.0\) in chapter "8\.2\.3\.4 Two ways of > Recording State" that there are two ways to record States inside a History\. > In this Blood pressure measurement Archetype they have chosen the way > where the state is recorded outside data History\. > Isn´t it necessary to correlate a blood pressure measurement \[at0003\] to a > position \[at0008\] \(Systolic: 120, Diastolic: 80, Position: Standing\)? >   Actually, this archetype has been remodelled using the other method\. Both methods make sense, depending on what you are doing, but the state\-on\-Event method is more likely with normal GP and hospital recording, whereas the other one would be more likely used in sport medicine, or maybe in conjunction with ECG etc in general fitness testing\. > What is the medical reason for modelling it like that? Even if it is made > the other way the problem still occurs with the protocol\. When we try to > match an Instrument \[at0012\] \(from Protocol\) to a certain blood pressure > measurement \(Systolic: 120, Diastolic: 80, Instrument: XYZ\) we don´t know > which instrument belongs to which blood pressure\. Am I wrong? Is there a > way to correlate them? Is there no need to correlate them? >   No, protocol \(i\.e\. method of measurement\) is the same for the whole history \- this is definitional\. You can't safely change how you record something in mid\-series \- you have to record a new time series\. > 2nd: > Why does the "state" begin with an ITEM\_LIST\[at0007\] and not with a > History? In the documentation it looks as if "state" and "data" have the > same structure\. >   they do; this was an error in the Archetype Editor which has now been fixed, but the archetypes have not being upgraded yet\. \- thomas beale --- ## Post #3 by @Sam Christoph Some things have been around for a long time in our development and one was to have state defined at the root level even though it applied to each event. The current editor should read both but saves the correct version. The result is attached, Sam Christoph Rinner wrote: [details="(attachments)"] [openEHR-EHR-OBSERVATION.blood\_pressure.v1.adl|attachment](upload://9nTK0ZxYIaWoxDeqlzsdzJptrC5.adl) (25 KB) [/details] --- ## Post #4 by @Mattias_Forss1 I should point out that the embedded state within each event isn't supported by the Java Archetype Editor \(only separate state with history\), but a new version that supports this will probably be out soon\.\.\. Actually, when the Java editor finds a state defined at the root level it is transformed to a state with history because that is the closest thing it resembles\. /Mattias --- ## Post #5 by @Mattias_Forss1 Another question related to this\. Is there any need in an archetype editor to specify different data and state for some events instead of always creating them in the first event in the history and then let all the succeding events reference \(use\_node\) the data and state in the first event? If a user decides to edit ADL manually and sets different data and state for some events, it is not supported by neither of the current archetype editors\.\.\. /Mattias --- ## Post #6 by @thomas.beale Mattias Forss wrote: --- ## Post #7 by @Mattias_Forss1 > Mattias Forss wrote: > > > >> > >>> Christoph > >>> Some things have been around for a long time in our development and one was > >>> to have state defined at the root level even though it applied to each > >>> event\. The current editor should read both but saves the correct version\. > >>> The result is attached, Sam > >>> > >> I should point out that the embedded state within each event isn't > >> supported by the Java Archetype Editor \(only separate state with > >> history\), but a new version that supports this will probably be out > >> soon\.\.\. > >> > >> Actually, when the Java editor finds a state defined at the root level > >> it is transformed to a state with history because that is the closest > >> thing it resembles\. > >> > >> > > > > Another question related to this\. Is there any need in an archetype > > editor to specify different data and state for some events instead of > > always creating them in the first event in the history and then let > > all the succeding events reference \(use\_node\) the data and state in > > the first event? If a user decides to edit ADL manually and sets > > different data and state for some events, it is not supported by > > neither of the current archetype editors\.\.\. > > > In general this should not happen, since the phenomenon being recorded > in each event is supposed to be the same one, just at different time\-points\. Just what I suspected\. Thanks Mattias --- **Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetype-blood-pressure-data-state-protocol-correlation/14583 **Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/archetype-blood-pressure-data-state-protocol-correlation/14583