Key result
A survey of UK consultant cardiac anaesthetists revealed that although 89% valued medical guidelines, only 21% wanted national guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia due to inflexibility concerns.
Cross-Sectional (n=140)
Yes
Despite valuing medical guidelines generally, most UK cardiac anaesthetists surveyed in 1994 opposed national guidelines for their specialty due to concerns about inflexibility.
UK cardiac anaesthetists may prefer flexible over national guidelines; leaves open whether attitudes have shifted since 1994.
Guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia could reduce irrational variation in practice and so improve cardiac surgical outcome. In October 1994, a postal survey was undertaken to determine the views and attitudes of consultant cardiac anaesthetists in the United Kingdom towards guidelines. One hundred and forty correctly completed questionnaires were returned (minimum response rate 64%). Eighty-nine per cent believed that guidelines were of value in medicine whilst only 21% wanted national guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia. Responses to other parts of the questionnaire showed that those against guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia were less positive towards their advantages and more negative to their disadvantages compared with those in their favour. The majority of cardiac anaesthetists, although believing them to be valuable in medicine, do not want guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia because they are concerned that guidelines would be inflexible and would neither reduce variation in, nor improve the quality of, cardiac anaesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. Peter Alston (1997) conducted a cross-sectional in Views on guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia (n=140). Postal survey was evaluated on Proportion wanting national guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia. A survey of UK consultant cardiac anaesthetists revealed that although 89% valued medical guidelines, only 21% wanted national guidelines for cardiac anaesthesia due to inflexibility concerns.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: