Improving Incidental Finding Documentation in Trauma Patients Amidst Poor Access to Follow-up Care

Incidental Findings in Trauma Patients: How Big is the Challenge?

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of incidental findings (IFs) identified during workup of trauma patients and the effectiveness with which they were documented and communicated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all trauma patients ≥15 y of age in 2018, who underwent at least one computed tomography scan. Patients' Electronic Medical Record was reviewed for the presence of IFs. IFs were classified in three categories: category 1, which includes highly significant findings requiring attention during hospitalization; category 2, which warrants attention in an outpatient basis; and category 3, which includes nonsignificant findings that require no follow-up.

RESULTS

836 patients were identified, of which 582 had at least one IF. Of the patients with IFs; 14 (2.4%) were category 1, 138 (23.7%) were category 2, and 569 (97.8%) met category 3 criteria. All category 1 patients received appropriate documentation of their IFs. Of patients with category 2 findings, only 13% had documentation of the IFs. Patients with IFs had longer length of stay (P: 0.04) and lower probability of being discharged to home (P < 0.01) compared to patients with no IFs. Only 12.5% of the patients admitted to trauma surgery service received an outpatient follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There was timely documentation and intervention for all patients with category 1 IFs. However, 87% of patients with category 2 IFs had inadequate documentation of the IF and outpatient follow-up. Outpatient follow-up of IFs poses a challenge for trauma patients partially due to their discharge disposition.

Incidental Radiology Findings on Computed Tomography Studies in Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

An incidental finding is defined as a newly discovered mass or lesion detected on imaging performed for an unrelated reason. The identification of an incidental finding may be an opportunity for the early detection of a serious medical condition, including a malignancy. However, little is known about the prevalence of incidental findings in the emergency department (ED) setting and the strategies that can be used to mitigate the risk associated with them in the ED. This study aimed to estimate the overall prevalence of incidental findings and to summarize the currently described measures to mitigate the risks associated with incidental findings.

METHODS

On November 22, 2020, a systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus was performed for studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals and reported the prevalence of incidental findings in computed tomography (CT) scans in patients in the ED. Patients who received CT scans that included the head, neck, chest, or abdomen/pelvis were included. The study characteristics, overall prevalence of incidental findings, prevalence of incidental findings by body region, and prespecified subgroups were extracted. The criteria used for risk stratification within individual studies were also extracted. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,385 studies were identified, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies represented 147,763 ED encounters or radiology reports across 16 countries, and 83% of studies were observational, cross-sectional studies. A total of 35 studies (50.7%) were in trauma patients. A large degree of heterogeneity was observed across the included studies. The overall pooled prevalence estimate for any incidental finding was 31.3% (95% confidence interval 24.4% to 39.1%). We found great variation in the methods described to mitigate the risk associated with incidental findings, including a lack of standardized risk stratification, inconsistent documentation practices, and only a small subset of studies describing prospective interventions aimed at improving the recognition and management of incidental findings from the ED.

CONCLUSION

In patients in the ED receiving CT scans, incidental findings are commonly encountered across a broad range of ED chief complaints. This review highlights the existence of great heterogeneity in the definitions used to classify incidental findings. Future studies are needed to determine a clinically feasible categorization standard or terminology for commonly encountered incidental findings in the ED setting to standardize classification and documentation.

Which criteria is a better predictor of ICU admission in trauma patients? An artificial neural network approach

PURPOSE

One of the most critical concerns in the intensive care unit (ICU) section is identifying the best criteria for entering patients to this part. This study aimed to predict the best compatible criteria for entering trauma patients in the ICU section.

METHOD

The present study was a historical cohort study. The data were collected from 2448 trauma patients referring to Shahid Rajaee Hospital between January 2015 and January 2017 in Shiraz, Iran. The artificial neural network (ANN) models with cross-validation and logistic regression (LR) with a backward method was used for data analysis. The final analysis was performed on a total of 958 patients who were transferred to the ICU section.

RESULTS

Based on the present results, the motor component of the GCS score at each cutoff point had the highest importance. The results also showed better performance for the AUC and accuracy rate for ANN compared with LR.

CONCLUSION

The most critical indicators in predicting the optimal use of ICU services in this study were the Motor component of the GCS. Results revealed that the ANN had a better performance than the LR in predicting the main outcomes of the traumatic patients in both the accuracy and AUC index. Trauma section surgeons and ICU specialists will benefit from this study's results and can assist them in making decisions to predict the patient outcomes before entering the ICU.

Strategies to optimize management of incidental radiographic findings in the primary care setting: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Incidental adrenal masses (IAMs) are common. Primary care providers (PCPs) are frequently responsible for incidentaloma evaluations. We evaluated whether PCPs view this paradigm effective, barriers faced, and strategies to optimize care delivery.

METHODS

This is a sequential explanatory study, comprised of surveys followed by focus groups of PCPs. Because lung nodules are another type of common incidental finding, we compared PCP views on management of lung nodules to their views on IAMs.

RESULTS

For IAMs, 22.3% of PCPs "always refer" to specialists, but for lung nodules this was 11.5% (p = 0.026). For lung nodules, the most significant barrier was insufficient time/support to longitudinally follow results (69%), but for IAMs it was uncertainty about which tests to order (68%). Fear of litigation was equal (lung = 22.5%, IAMs = 21.3%). Consistent themes regarding the "ideal" system included specific recommendations in radiology reports; automation of orders for follow-up tests; longitudinal tracking tools; streamlined consultations; and decision guides embedded within the electronic health record.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents are more comfortable with lung nodules than IAMs. Management of "incidentalomas" is within their scope of practice, but the current system can be optimized.