Management of Incidental Findings in the Trauma Patient: Is the Trauma Team a Primary Care Provider as Well?

Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings in chest and abdominopelvic CT scans of trauma patients; A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Imaging may inadvertently reveal pathologies unrelated to their performing purpose, known as incidental findings (IF). This study aimed to assess the prevalence, clinical significance, and documentation of IFs in chest and abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scans of trauma patients.

METHODS

This observational study was conducted at two urban level-1 trauma centers from March 2019 through April 2022. Official radiology reports of trauma patients who underwent chest and/or abdominopelvic CT scans at the emergency department (ED) were explored, and IF were extracted. Predictive factors of the presence of IFs and their documenting were investigated.

RESULTS

Out of 656 chest and 658 abdominopelvic CT scans, 167 (25.37%) and 212 (32.31%) scans harbored at least one IF, respectively. Patients with IFs tended to be of higher age and female in both chest (age: 48 [IQR: 35-62] vs. 34 [IQR: 25-42.5]; female: 31.14% vs 14.66%, p < 0.001 for both) and abdominopelvic CT scans (age: 41 [IQR: 30-57.5] vs 33 [IQR: 25-43], female: 26.42% vs. 13.96%, p < 0.001 for both). As for documentation of significant IFs, only 49 of 112 chest IFs (43.8%) and 55 of 176 abdominopelvic IFs (31.3%) were documented. Investigating factors associated with documentation of clinically significant IFs, shorter length of hospital stay (1.5 (IQR: 0-4) vs. 3 (IQR: 2-8), p = 0.003), and discharging by ED physicians (documentation rate: 13.2% vs 42.6%, p < 0.001) were associated with poorer documentation of IFs only in abdominopelvic scans.

CONCLUSION

CT imaging in ED trauma patients often reveals incidental findings, especially in older patients. Over 50% of these findings are clinically significant, yet they are frequently ignored and not documented. Physicians need to be more vigilant in recognizing and documenting these incidental findings and informing patients of the need for further evaluation.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Incidental findings (IFs) are common among injured patients and create a complex problem with no standardized solution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of adult trauma patients admitted to a level I trauma center from January to May 2017. IFs from abdominal, chest, and neck imaging were categorized based on previously published guidelines focused on clinically significant IFs. Patient demographics related to access to care were collected. Outcome measures included documentation and patient notification of IFs. A univariate analysis was performed to identify characteristics that were associated with these outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 1671 patients, 682 met inclusion criteria, and 418 (61.3%) had any IF based on the a priori categorization scheme. In total, 67 (9.8%) were homeless, 58 (8.5%) had no health insurance, and 115 (16.9%) had no established primary care provider prior to admission. Documentation of IFs was included in discharge summaries and instructions 76.5% and 40.2% of the time, respectively. Physicians were statistically more likely to appropriately document IFs when radiologists provided specific recommendations. Transfer to another hospital service prior to discharge and discharge to another acute care facility were associated with reduced rates of successful documentation. No factors significantly affected documentation of patient notification.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma patients are at risk for poor access to follow-up care of IFs. Expanding IF-specific guidelines, collaborating with radiologists to facilitate their inclusion in reports, and ensuring that IFs are part of patient hand-offs could provide systematic methods of improving their documentation.