Physician Opinions on the Implementation of the Sign Guideline for Heart Failure

Background and Aims: To assess physician opinion of, and attitudes to, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN) guideline for chronic heart failure (CHF) due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Methods and Results: A questionnaire examining physicians' attitudes and their use of the SIGN guideline for CHF was distributed to 158 physicians in two teaching hospitals within one NHS trust. 65% of recipients responded. More cardiologists had read the guideline compared to non-cardiologists (91 vs 56%, p < 0.05). The majority of cardiologists and non-cardiologists agreed that it was applicable to their patients (92 vs 79%, p > 0.1) and that implementation may reduce hospital admissions (65 vs 59%, p > 0.5). In general, compliance was thought to be a problem in only a minority of patients in both groups for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (8 vs 19%), diuretics (12 vs 29%) and digoxin (17 vs 19%, all p > 0.1). Beta-blocker compliance was identified as a problem by both groups (50 vs 53%, p > 0.5) while fewer cardiologists reported compliance as a problem with spironolactone (4 vs 25%, p < 0.05). More cardiologists felt that there was a need for a community based CHF nurse specialist (100 vs 57%, p < 0.001), and that this strategy would reduce hospital admissions (92 vs 57%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Differences exist between cardiologist and non-cardiologist physicians' awareness of the SIGN guideline for CHF. Furthermore, we have shown differences in reported implementation of the guideline and perceived difficulties with specific drug therapies. This is in spite of high levels of agreement in both groups with the treatment suggested by the guideline and the anticipated benefits resulting from its implementation.