In my style of writing, I often find that I lapse into relating what happens or has happened, usually via short, choppy, dead sentences. As far as I can tell, this is because the scene I am writing cannot be shown - or at least would need to be greatly revised before it could be. My method for fixing this is to simply skip the scene in question, and fast forward to the point where I can begin showing, rather than telling.
Note: This does not mean I believe telling is an inherent no-no. See the first comment to what's answer.
Here is an example, from what I am currently writing:
The main protagonist is currently a prisoner. After relating the terrible conditions of the dungeon (which was done through showing, not telling), there is a chapter break. In the next chapter, a guard enters the dungeon and starts ordering everyone up. The protagonist gets in the way, and the guard knocks her out.
Here's the break. While the protagonist is out, the guard gets everyone out of the cell and lines them up for inspection by an individual. None of that is related. The protagonist wakes up during the inspection, at the first point things can be shown again. How she got there is eventually revealed a paragraph or two later, by the guard simply stating that they are being inspected. That's all the reader really needs to know.
This method generally works just fine. I find that the reader doesn't really need to know everything that would have happened in the 'telling' scene, and I can relate the bare minimums in the 'showing' scene, usually through dialogue or action.
Here's my question: Is this a good method, or a bad method? Out of necessity, I can't relate what has transpired right away, and often wait several paragraphs before doing so. Will not knowing what has happened confuse/frustrate a reader? Or will it simply build suspense, and so add to the scene?