[Evidence-based guidelines in gastroenterological medical care: a survey among members of the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) on acceptance, application and optimization].

Evidence-based guidelines are an important basis for medical action. The methodological effort to develop guidelines is high. Nevertheless, a high methodological effort in the development of guidelines does not automatically guarantee the success of a guideline, but it must be ensured that guidelines are also accepted and thus applied. Currently (as of October 2024), 28 guidelines are available, which were created under the leadership of the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). How these guidelines are perceived and used in everyday clinical practice and what obstacles exist in their implementation has been little researched so far.This study examines the acceptance and use of the DGVS guidelines with the aim of optimizing the guideline process and implementation.A questionnaire with 32 questions was designed, which included closed questions, Likert scales and free-text answers. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 7015 DGVS members. Answering the questionnaire was anonymous and voluntary. In subgroup analyses, physicians in outpatient care, hospitals and university hospitals, as well as physicians with or without experience in guideline development were compared.604 responses were evaluated (response rate 8.6%). The DGVS guidelines are ubiquitously well known and are considered extremely useful by 66% of respondents. They are the main source of information in everyday clinical practice, but their structure is considered to need improvement. Users trust the quality of guidelines regardless of the guideline classification. There are subgroup differences regarding the extent of use or the various reasons for the use of guidelines. In outpatient care, guidelines are more often used to protect oneself against causing a medical error compared to university hospitals, and the avoidance of overtreatment generally seems to be more important at non-university hospitals.Overall, the DGVS guidelines are rated positively. In different areas of medical practice there are different wishes and requirements for guidelines. Improving the topicality of the guidelines is the priority for most respondents. Further starting points for improvement are the structure of the guidelines and focusing on relevant content for everyday cliclinical practice, especially in outpatient care.