Implementation of the S3 prostate cancer guideline in daily clinical practice: results of a survey among urologists

• Published in: Urologe. Ausgabe A 2014-10, Vol.53 (10), p.1500-1503
• Main Authors: Fröhner, M, Khan, C, Koch, R, Schorr, S G, Wirth, M
• Format: Article
• Language: ger
• Subjects: Germany - epidemiology; Guideline Adherence - utilization; Health Care Surveys; Humans; Male; Medical Oncology - standards; Medical Oncology - statistics & numerical data; Physicians - statistics & numerical data; Population Surveillance; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - standards; Practice Patterns, Physicians' - utilization; Prevalence; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis; Prostatic Neoplasms - epidemiology; Prostatic Neoplasms - therapy; Quality Assurance, Health Care; Urology - standards; Urology - statistics & numerical data
• ISSN: 1433-0563
• DOI: 10.1007/s00120-014-3518-0

Beside the quality of a guideline, the implementation in daily practice is of particular concern. The aim of this study was to determine the degree of implementation of the interdisciplinary S3 guideline on diagnostics and treatment of prostate cancer. A questionnaire containing questions regarding the implementation of the S3 guideline was sent to 119 private practice urologists and 37 urologists working in hospitals. Comparisons were made with the χ(2) test. The response rate was 63%. Of the responding urologists, 93% reported that they used the guideline in the daily practice, while 95% considered the strong recommendations of the guideline as treatment standard. Urologists working in a hospital recommended the guideline less frequently to their patients as source of information (30 versus 58%, p = 0.0283), but more frequently to other physicians (95 versus 72%, p = 0.0294), than private practice urologists did. The interdisciplinary S3 guideline on diagnostics and treatment of prostate cancer is used by the vast majority of urologists in their daily practice. The strong guideline recommendations are considered as treatment standard. A more compact presentation and a propagation of the guideline outside the urologic community might improve implementation of the guideline.