You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Is point-of-care ultrasound disruptive innovation? Formulating why POCUS is different from conventional comprehensive ultrasound
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Ultrasound Journal, October 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13089-018-0106-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jesper Weile, Jacob Brix, Anders Broens Moellekaer |
| Abstract |
Point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) is spreading throughout Emergency Medicine, Critical Care and Pre-hospital Care. However, there is an underlying inherited conflict with the established specialties performing comprehensive examinations. It has been stated that PoCUS is disruptive innovation. If this is true the definition might open up for a new perspective on differentiating comprehensive ultrasound from PoCUS. PoCUS in the light of disruptive innovation is a different perspective on ultrasound that has not before been academically scrutinized. In this paper we investigate if PoCUS is in fact disruptive innovation. This is done by comparative analysis with the point of departure in disruptive innovation theory known from the business world. We find that a disruptive innovation process is happening. This new knowledge allows us to put forward advice for the stakeholders in the field of ultrasound. It also allows us to challenge the conventional pyramid of expertise used to describe different types of ultrasound. The perspective of this paper is mutual understanding of similarities and differences between conventional and point-of-care ultrasound. Only with this understanding the stakeholders can collaborate and use the full spectrum of ultrasound for the benefit of the patient. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 11% |
| United States | 4 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 8% |
| Israel | 2 | 5% |
| Italy | 2 | 5% |
| Denmark | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 3% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 26 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 19% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 31% |