Simple SummaryMost Spanish specialists involved in the clinical management of spinal cord compression are familiar with the scoring systems for spine instability and spinal compression as well as with the NICE guideline recommendations. However, many do not apply them in routine practice. Scores on the scales used to evaluate spine instability in neoplastic diseases were interpreted correctly by 57.5–70.0% of the practitioners while scores of the spinal cord compression grading system were interpreted correctly by 30.0–37.5%. There is room for improvement in the management of SMD in routine practice.Abstract(1) Background: Whether clinical management of spinal metastatic disease (SMD) matches evidence-based recommendations is largely unknown. (2) Patients and Methods: A questionnaire was distributed through Spanish Medical Societies, exploring routine practice, interpretation of the SINS and ESCC scores and agreement with items in the Tokuhashi and SINS scales, and NICE guideline recommendations. Questionnaires were completed voluntarily and anonymously, without compensation. (3) Results: Eighty specialists participated in the study. A protocol for patients with SMD existed in 33.7% of the hospitals, a specific multidisciplinary board in 33.7%, 40% of radiological reports included the ESCC score, and a prognostic scoring method was used in 73.7%. While 77.5% of the participants were familiar with SINS, only 60% used it. The different SINS and ESCC scores were interpreted correctly by 57.5–70.0% and 30.0–37.5% of the participants, respectively. Over 70% agreed with the items included in the SINS and Tokuhashi scores and with the recommendations from the NICE guideline. Differences were found across private/public sectors, hospital complexity, number of years of experience, number of patients with SMD seen annually and especially across specialties. (4) Conclusions: Most specialists know and agree with features defining the gold standard treatment for patients with SCC, but many do not apply them.