Hi again all, and thanks for your responses in this thread and in the separate thread specifically about the semantics of “pulse” and “heart beat”. Based on the responses we’ve received from clinicians and others that “pulse” and “heart beat” are conceptually different, it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll end up with two completely separate archetypes.
Then there is the “ontology of practical clinical recording” view than Ian mentioned in the other thread:
The issue of mixing up these concepts has been present since the days of paper record forms with limited flexibility and limited space. The data written in paper forms will always be subject to human interpretation both when captured and when used, while digital forms are much more dependent on clearly defined information concepts for computer reuse. On the other hand, digital forms make it much easier to allow the user the option of choosing which of the two concepts they’re observing and recording. Additionally, it seems likely that in most use cases you can make good assumptions about which of the two concepts should be the default choice presented in a user interface.
On this basis, we’re proposing to remodel the concepts as two completely separate archetypes.
Are there any practical uses, apart from existing applications, where this approach would be problematic?