Aims and objectives: To compare the efficacy of chronic heart failure management programmes (CHF-MPs) according to a scoring algorithm used to quantify the level of applied interventions-the Heart Failure Intervention Score (HF-IS). Background: The overall efficacy of heart failure programmes has been proven in several meta-analyses. However, the debate continues as to which components are essential in a heart failure programme to improve patient outcomes. Design: Prospective cohort study of patients participating in heart failure programmes. Method: Forty-eight of 62 (77 ) programmes in Australia participating in a national register of CHF-MPs were evaluated using the HF-IS: derived from a summed and weighted score of each intervention applied by the CHF-MP (27 interventions overall). The CHF-MPs were prospectively categorised as relatively low (HF-IS <190 - n = 39 programmes 407 patients) or high (HF-IS = 190 - n = 9 programmes 166 patients) in complexity. Six-month morbidity and mortality rates in 573 consecutively recruited patients with systolic dysfunction and in New York Heart Association Class II-IV were prospectively examined. Results: Patients exposed to CHF-MPs with a high HF-IS had a lower rate of unplanned, all-cause hospitalisation (n = 24, 14 vs. n = 102, 25 ) compared with CHF-MPs with a low HF-IS within six months. On an adjusted basis, CHF-MPs with a high HF-IS were associated with a reduced risk of unplanned hospitalisation and/or death within six months and remained event-free longer. Conclusion: High complexity CHF-MPs applying more evidence-based interventions are associated with a higher event-free survival over six months. Relevance to clinical practice: The HF-IS is an easy-to-use evidence-based tool to assist programme coordinators to improve the quality of their heart failure programme which may also improve patient outcomes.