<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> As part of the development of the evidence-based (S3) clinical practice guidelines for kidney and bladder cancer by the German Guideline Program in Oncology, quality indicators (QIs) were defined to measure the quality of care. Based on these guidelines and QIs, the German Cancer Society (DKG) developed two new certification systems. The aim of this article is to show the process of development and implementation of QIs in certified cancer centres. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Based on strong recommendations of each guideline and an additional systematic literature review for national and international QIs, two sets of QIs were derived in a multistep standardized approach. These QIs were implemented in the centres in certification data sheets to measure their outcomes. First results of treatment years 2018 and 2019 are available. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The final sets include 9 QIs for kidney cancer and 12 QIs for bladder cancer. Two-thirds of the QIs were transferred to the data sheets. In 2018 and 2019, the results of all but one QI are within the plausibility limits. From 2020 on, they are replaced by stricter target values that will challenge centres to improve their outcomes. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Guideline-derived QIs make relevant aspects of patient care measurable and consequently improvable. The first QI results are encouraging. However, the DKG certification system and the methods of measuring quality are under ongoing development. Systematic QI implementation and evaluation may help to generate broader databases and thus expand knowledge.

According to the information-seeking behaviors of patients, booklets which can be downloaded from the Internet for free are an important source of information notably for patients with cancer. This study investigated whether information booklets for patients with cancer available at German websites are in accordance with the formal and content criteria of evidence-based information. We compared and compiled both content and formal criteria by matching different national and international standards for written patient information using a merged instrument. A catalog with a total of 16 items within 4 categories (quality of the publication, quality of information, quality of information representation, and transparency) was created. Patient information booklets for the most frequent tumor types were collected from the Internet. A total of 52 different patient booklets were downloaded and assessed. Overall, no booklet fulfilled all criteria. The quality of the publications was evaluated with an average value of 1.67 while the quality of the information had a mean value of 1.45, and the quality of information presentation had a similar rating (1.39). The transparency criteria were evaluated as lowest with an average of 1.07. In summary, German booklets for cancer patients have some shortcomings concerning formal and content criteria for evidence-based patient information. The applied requirement catalog is suitable for wide use and may help in quality assurance of health information. It may be used as part of an obligatory external evaluation, which could help improving the quality of health information.