# Data quality questions/ proposal (from openEHR-clinical Digest, Vol 10, Issue 20)

**Category:** [Clinical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/clinical-archive/153)
**Created:** 2007-07-16 14:32 UTC
**Views:** 2
**Replies:** 1
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/data-quality-questions-proposal-from-openehr-clinical-digest-vol-10-issue-20/15961

---

## Post #1 by @Melvin_Reynolds

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\.

In mail of Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:00:10, openehr\-clinical\-
request@openehr\.org wrote:

---

## Post #2 by @thomas.beale

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

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/data-quality-questions-proposal-from-openehr-clinical-digest-vol-10-issue-20/15961
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/data-quality-questions-proposal-from-openehr-clinical-digest-vol-10-issue-20/15961