Skip to main content

On- and Offline Documentation of Spine Procedures: Spine Tango

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Manual of Spine Surgery

Abstract

The mainstays of patient care throughout the ages used to be intuition, psychology and charisma. In this environment, which was characterized by trust on the part of the patients and society and self-confidence and dedication to the cause on the part of the clinician, considerable advances in medical therapy were made. Only a few players in the medical arena made initiatives for a systematic assessment of what was done and what the result of those treatments were. Among them was Florence Nightingale, a nurse, who applied statistical methods for analyzing preventable deaths in the British military during the Crimean War as early as 1854. Ernest Codman, a US physician and the father of what is today considered as outcomes management in patient care, became famous in the early 1900s for his “end results system” which stated that every patient needed to be followed up to assess the benefits and complications of the received treatment. Finally, Maurice E. Müller, cofounder of AO/ASIF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Osteosynthese/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation), published his concept of a multisite trauma registry with centralized database for assessment of surgeon performance, efficacy of surgical techniques, and postmarket surveillance of implants in 1963 (Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Willenegger H, Die Gemeinschaftserhebung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen, Arch klin Chir 304:808–817, 1963).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Society for Quality (2002) Quality glossary. Qual Prog 35:43–61. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2899321/, Ref 17

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bombardier C (2000) Outcome assessments in the evaluation of treatment of spinal disorders: summary and general recommendations. Spine 25:3100–3103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A et al (2003) Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in ­primary care. BMJ 326:816–819

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chassin MR (1998) Is health care ready for Six Sigma quality? Milbank Q 76:565–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Deyo RA, Battie M, Boerskens AJ et al (1998) Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine 23(2):003–013

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garvin D (1984) What does product quality really mean? Sloan Manage Rev 26:25–43

    Google Scholar 

  7. Impellizzeri FM, Bizini M, Leunig M et al (2009) Money matters: exploiting the data from outcomes research for quality improvement initiatives. Eur Spine J 3:348–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mannion AF, Elfering A (2006) Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 1:93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle AR et al (2005) Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J 14:1014–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mannion AF, Porchet F, Kleinstück FS et al (2009) The quality of spine surgery from the patient’s perspective. Part 1: the core outcome measures index in clinical practice. Eur Spine J 3:367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Willenegger H (1963) Die Gemeins­chaftserhebung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen. Arch klin Chir 304:808–817

    Google Scholar 

  12. Röder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D et al (2002) A European spine registry. Eur Spine J 11:303–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Röder C, Chavanne A, Mannion AF et al (2005) SSE Spine Tango–content, workflow, set-up. www.eurospine.org-Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 14:920–924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sower S, Fair F (2005) There is more to quality than continuous improvement: listening to Plato. Qual Manag J 12:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  15. Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK (2007) Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc 82:735–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wensing M, Elwyn G (2003) Methods for incorporating patients’ views in health care. BMJ 326:877–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D et al (2009) How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J 3:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Röder M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Röder, C., Zweig, T. (2012). On- and Offline Documentation of Spine Procedures: Spine Tango. In: Vieweg, U., Grochulla, F. (eds) Manual of Spine Surgery. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22682-3_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22682-3_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22681-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22682-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics