Documentation of incidentally noted hepatic steatosis to emergency department patients: A retrospective study.

Background: Hepatic steatosis is a common incidental finding on emergency department (ED) imaging studies, occurring in up to 10% of studies, and carries significant long-term morbidity. Frequently considered an unimportant finding, it is unknown how often ED patients are informed of hepatic steatosis. Our objective was to examine hepatic steatosis inclusion in ED discharge materials.

Methods: Data from discharged patients at an urban academic ED (>90,000 visits) with abdominal imaging (computed tomography or ultrasound) from 2019 to 2022 were screened. Patients with radiology reports documenting hepatic steatosis were included. Two trained data abstractors analyzed discharge materials and coded disclosure of steatosis (present/absent). Data abstraction also noted how the finding was included (e.g., follow-up instructions, provision of radiology report). Factors associated with patient disclosure were examined through regression models including age, race, ethnicity, insurance, number of imaging studies during encounter, type of imaging study, and inclusion of hepatic steatosis in the impression section of radiology report.

Results: Of 10,677 radiology reports, 1209 (11.3%) had documented hepatic steatosis. The mean (±SD) age was 47.1 (±14.1) years; 56.4% were female, 53.5% were White, and 30.7% Hispanic. Only 173 of 1209 patients (14.3%) received any discharge documentation of hepatic steatosis. In 65% of cases where disclosure occurred, the imaging report was pasted verbatim into discharge material. There were no significant differences in discharge documentation by demographic groups. Mention within the radiology report impression (rather than the report body alone) occurred in 73.8% of records and was the strongest predictor of disclosure to patients (adjusted odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.39-3.54).

Conclusions: Despite the high prevalence of hepatic steatosis in radiology reports, rates of documentation in patient-facing discharge materials are notably low, exposing a possible communication failure with consequences for diagnosis.