Introduction: Incidental findings (IFs) are findings discovered in the course of healthcare (e.g., blood tests, genetic tests, imaging) that are unrelated to the primary purpose for which a test was sought. Some IFs constitute new knowledge that have implications for patient autonomy and welfare. IFs found in emergency departments (EDs) are difficult to manage, with one study reporting that of 392 patients with IFs, 122 had no follow-up and 242 had no electronic record of the finding. Methods: A critical interpretive literature review was conducted to explore current practices regarding identification, disclosure, and management of IFs in EDs, and to identify ethical challenges that require research focus and policy reform. The search strategy included ‘incidental findings’ AND ‘emergency’ and derivatives, retrieving 12,021 studies from databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, as well as handsearching and reference list searching. Following screening, 97 studies were included. Data was extracted, analyzed using descriptive statistics, and then critically interpreted to capture key ideas. Results: Of 97 included articles, 75 have relevant empirical data. Of the 75, most literature (89%) presented the frequency of IFs in EDs, with an average frequency of 34%. Most (84%) did not report on patient disclosure rates or follow-up rates. When reported, patient notification rates are as low as 2.6% with an average of 15% over 12 studies. Empirical studies included in the review do not address ethical principles or patient preferences on disclosure. The literature reveals suggestions to manage IFs in EDs, including implementation of automatic feedback or alert mechanisms, clarification of responsibilities within treating teams, protocols in radiology departments, and improvements to patient documentation. Test results by letter are noted as insufficient because patients are unable to ask questions. Authors suggest further research on optimal follow-up recommendations to alleviate patient and physician distress. Further results will be presented, critically interpreted, and discussed, with attention to ethical implications and challenges. Conclusion: The literature on IFs in EDs focuses too narrowly on frequency, with ad hoc suggestions for practice, research, and policy changes to improve the ethical management of IFs. Numerous factors, including crucial knowledge gaps, contribute to inadequate management of IFs arising in EDs. Research and ethics informed policy guidance is needed.