Table 2 Prevalence of different critical attitudes towards guidelines (GL) amongst members of the German Association for Palliative Care DGP (n = 1031)

 Credibility and independence of some authors of GL are questionable.

139 (13.5%)

13.2

45.1

26.7

15.0

 GL are contradictory.

112 (10.9%)

27.6

53.0

13.8

5.5

 GL are not always up to date.

50 (4.8%)

3.3

23.5

49.1

24.1

 Legal position of guidelines is unclear.

165 (16.0%)

13.0

39.4

30.7

16.9

 High number of GL is confusing.

47 (4.6%)

15.0

36.1

30.8

18.1

 Too few studies to create GL in palliative care.

289 (28.0%)

13.6

40.2

36.3

10.0

 Too little experience to create GL in palliative care.

92 (8.9%)

37.6

50.2

9.1

3.2

 GL are developed by experts who know little about everyday practice.

74 (7.2%)

28.8

49.3

16.3

5.5

 It is difficult to change routine treatments.

18 (1.7%)

14.6

27.8

39.8

17.8

 There are general problems in the application of GL.

80 (7.8%)

12.8

46.4

28.7

12.1

 There are no incentives to apply GL.

57 (5.5%)

29.2

46.9

18.2

5.7

 The use of GL is complicated.

40 (3.9%)

23.1

55.5

16.5

4.8

 GL are too general and not concrete enough for day-to-day routines.

47 (4.6%)

19.3

55.4

18.6

6.7

 GL are a kind of “cookbook medicine”.

38 (3.7%)

25.6

35.6

26.7

12.1

 GL restrict the flexibility of individual patient care.

5 (0.5%)

26.5

42.1

18.9

12.5

 GL restrict the physician’s therapeutic freedom.

34 (3.3%)

34.2

44.0

12.9

8.8

 GL restrict one’s own thinking.

10 (1.0%)

41.7

42.2

9.4

6.7

 GL question my own competence as physician/nurse.

17 (1.6%)

61.5

33.1

3.2

2.2

 Evidence based medicine in GL contradicts the holistic philosophy of palliative care.

57 (5.5%)

37.4

46.0

12.7

3.9

 GL are used for quality control. Quality control and dying must not be combined with each other.

38 (3.7%)

29.7

38.7

16.1

15.5

 Palliative care GL restrict the individual healthcare of patients.

46 (4.5%)

32.1

50.6

12.1

5.3