Optimizing Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Documentation in Medical Music Therapy: Process-Improvement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To measure the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions delivered during clinical care, investigators need to ensure robust and routine data collection without disrupting individualized patient care or adding unnecessary documentation burden. OBJECTIVE: A process-improvement study was undertaken to improve documentation consistency and increase the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; ie, stress, pain, anxiety, and coping) within a medical music therapy (MT) team. METHODS: We used 2 Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to improve documentation processes among an MT team (13.3 clinical full-time equivalent staff). Trainings focused on providing skills and resources for optimizing pre- and postsession PRO collection, specific guidelines for entering session data in the electronic health record, and opportunities for the team to provide feedback. Two comparisons of therapists' PRO collection rates were conducted: (1) between the 6 months before PDSA Cycle 1 (T0) and PDSA Cycle 1 (T1), and (2) between T1 and PDSA Cycle 2 (T2). RESULTS: Music therapists' rates of capturing any PRO within MT sessions increased significantly (P<.001) from T0 to T1 and from T1 to T2 for all domains, including stress (4/2758, 0.1% at T0; 1012/2786, 36.3% at T1; and 393/775, 50.7% at T2), pain (820/2758, 29.7% at T0; 1444/2786, 51.8% at T1; and 476/775, 61.4% at T2), anxiety (499/2758, 18.1% at T0; 950/2786, 34.1% at T1; and 400/775, 51.6% at T2), and coping (0/2758, 0% at T0; 571/2786, 20.5% at T1; and 319/775, 41.2% at T2). Music therapists' feedback and findings from a retrospective analysis were used to create an improved electronic health record documentation template. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of PRO data collection improved within the medical MT team. Although the process improvement in this study was applied to a nonpharmacologic MT intervention, the principles are applicable to numerous inpatient clinical providers. As hospitals continue to implement nonpharmacologic therapies in response to the Joint Commission's recommendations, routine PRO collection will provide future researchers with the ability to evaluate the impact of these therapies on pain relief and opioid use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".