Eastgate Davidson And Mcphail

An article co-authored by Eastgate, Davidson and McPhail (2014) explores whether the reporting timeframe between radiographically acquired images and radiological reports of traumatic ankle injuries meets the four-hour timeframe that patients stay in emergency departments. This recent study holds present-day applicability, as delays in producing radiological reports jeopardises the success of patient diagnoses and outcomes.
Eastgate, Davidson and McPhail (2014) intersperse concise, comprehensible sentences with more descriptive sentences. This writing style provides readers with background knowledge while allowing elaboration on the technical aspects of research. The authors present material in a logical order, flanking each paragraph with orientating and concluding statements. Clarity of the information is aided by graphs, displaying patterns on reporting timeframes and demand profiles for radiological reports.
The article is thorough in exploring the potential reasons behind research findings. For instance, after presenting evidence on the extreme delay in radiological reports, Eastgate, Davidson and McPhail (2014, pp. 30) do not pinpoint causation. Instead, they elaborate on unexplored factors which may have influenced the results, and mention the research design’s limitations. Thus, further research will better inform a solution.
Although the article’s references are
I recognise how the central dogma of providing the greatest patient care is often compromised by insufficient hospital equipment and staff. The main point I have learnt from the article is that despite the finest efforts of medical staff, countless factors prevent the timely execution of radiological reports. This stresses the need for further research, and reinforces the idea that radiographers, radiologists and other staff each contribute vitally to the patient care