The results of a study like this always poses considerable challenges, including how to logically as well as accurately presenting the statistics and discussion of the results. This is where the statistical experts involved in the study clearly provided their assistance. The results begin with a description fo the total time, number of individual task actions recorded, and total TOT. The main finding was that an average of 12.8% of physician time was spent multitasking. The discussion also made clear distinctions between the task types completed as well as the seniority of physicians. Specific interruption rates were recorded for each task category and seniority level as well as expertise were also recorded. Hence, the central premise and hypothesis of the article was substantiated by the findings, each of which related to a very specific and clear category. Interestingly, the main result supported the premise that an increase of interruptions also resulted in an increase in task compromise or error, regardless of expertise or seniority level of the professionals involved.

The tables are well positioned throughout the Results section, completing the information presented in the narrative of the section. These include the specific statistics that inform the results and further discussion of the study. Furthermore, the complexity level increases throughout the section, with complex calculations at the end of the Results section informed by the more basic statistical information provided at the beginnings.

The Discussion section begins with a brief summary of the statistical findings presented in the Results section. This is followed by a brief consideration of the remedies that physicians themselves created for their task completion rates, as well as those suggested by the findings of the study. This section also includes other similar investigations to inform the findings of the current study, as well as to suggest possible remedies for the challenges faced within the hospital setting.

Importantly,...

The fact that these two sections warranted a focus of their own indicates the relative lack of research attention that has been given to the specific premise of the study. One specific limitation was the relatively narrow scope of the investigation, including only one organization of focus. Hence, there is no differentiation in terms of work organization or internal culture, which could influence the results. This in itself is a basis to warrant further study. To mitigate this limitation, numerous other studies were sued for comparison purposes.
The main and most important finding was that the interruptive nature of the clinical environment is likely to impact upon patient safety. Hence, this is the most important premise of future study.

The Reference section includes an impressive range of empirical studies and academic resources, ranging from as early as 1993 to as recent as 2009. Clearly, each reference document was selected for its relevance to the study at hand. Busy clinical environments and interruption effects are not a new problem facing medical personnel and patients. Hence, the inclusion of earlier sources is warranted by the nature of the hypotheses investigated.

In general, the article appears to be very well written and organized, addressing the problem as clearly and concisely as possible. Although the limitation of focus is indeed an issue, this is addressed by including other studies and results, as well as comparing the specific results for the organization in question with those generally found across the profession.

Perhaps the article could have used more focus on suggestions for a remedy regarding the clinical environment and patient safety. However, the information as presented is ample to suggest future research of the kind and possible remedies that are perhaps beyond its current scope.