The objective of our retrospective investigation was to examine the influence of gender on in-hospital mortality and morbidity after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). Between January 1993 and June 2002, 2212 patients (782 females, 1430 males) underwent AVR. Propensity matching was used to adjust for numerous differences in baseline characteristics and perioperative variables between groups. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in females (27 [3.5%] females versus 23 [1.6%] males; P = 0.005). An analysis using 1:1 matching by propensity score did not find a significant difference in in-hospital mortality [OR (95% confidence intervals), 1.0 [0.4, 2.6]; P = 0.99) or overall morbidity (1.4 [0.7, 2.5]; P = 0.29) between groups. Further analyses, including classification of women and men into quintile groups by propensity scores and logistic regression models with propensity score adjustment, found that females were at increased risk for cardiac morbidity [OR (95% CI), 3.4 [1.1, 10.8]; P = 0.038), but not mortality (0.9 [0.3, 2.5]; P = 0.88) nor other morbidities. These results suggest that there is no greater than a 2.5-fold increase in risk for females compared with males undergoing AVR. Female gender, however, may impart increased risk for cardiac morbidity after AVR.

IntroductionTechnological and medical advances have led to a growing population of children with medical complexity (CMC) defined by substantial medical needs, healthcare utilisation and morbidity. These children are at a high risk of missed, fragmented and/or inappropriate care, and families bear extraordinary financial burden and stress. While small in number (<1% of children), this group uses ~1/3 of all child healthcare resources, and need coordinated care to optimise their health. Complex care for kids Ontario (CCKO) brings researchers, families and healthcare providers together to develop, implement and evaluate a population-level roll-out of care for CMC in Ontario, Canada through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design. The intervention includes dedicated key workers and the utilisation of coordinated shared care plans.Methods and analysisOur primary objective is to evaluate the CCKO intervention using a randomised waitlist control design. The waitlist approach involves rolling out an intervention over time, whereby all participants are randomised into two groups (A and B) to receive the intervention at different time points determined at random. Baseline measurements are collected at month 0, and groups A and B are compared at months 6 and 12. The primary outcome is the family-prioritized Family Experiences with Coordination of Care (FECC) survey at 12 months. The FECC will be compared between groups using an analysis of covariance with the corresponding baseline score as the covariate. Secondary outcomes include reports of child and parent health outcomes, health system utilisation and process outcomes.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval has been obtained for this multicentre RCT. This trial will assess the effect of a large population-level complex care intervention to determine whether dedicated key workers and coordinated care plans have an impact on improving service delivery and quality of life for CMC and their families.Trial registration numberNCT02928757.

Background: Complex Care for Kids Ontario (CCKO) is a multi-year strategy aimed at expanding a hub-and-spoke model to deliver coordinated care for children with medical complexity (CMC) across Ontario. Objective: This paper aims to identify the facilitators, barriers and lessons learned from the implementation of the Ontario CCKO strategy. Method: Alongside an outcome evaluation of the CCKO strategy, we conducted a process evaluation to understand the implementation context, process and mechanisms. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 38 healthcare leaders, clinicians and support staff from four regions involved in CCKO care delivery and/or governance. Results: Facilitators to CCKO implementation were sustained engagement of system-wide stakeholders, inter-organizational partnerships, knowledge sharing and family engagement. Barriers to CCKO implementation were resources and funding, fragmentation of care, aligning perspectives between providers and clinical staff recruitment and retention. Conclusion:A flexible approach is required to implement a complex, multi-centre policy strategy. Other jurisdictions considering such a model of care delivery would benefit from attention to contextual variations in implementation setting, building cross-sector engagement and buy-in, and offering continuous support for modifications to the intervention as and when required.

No abstract