Durante la pandemia COVID-19 se ha producido un aumento de la demanda de mascarillas por parte de profesionales sanitarios y de la población general. En este contexto, se hace necesario sintetizar las características y las indicaciones de uso de los distintos tipos de mascarillas existentes. Se consultaron y recopilaron las diferentes recomendaciones difundidas por instituciones de reconocido prestigio, como la Organización Mundial de la Salud, The European Centre for Disease Prevention, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine o el Ministerio de Sanidad del Gobierno de España. Las instituciones consultadas aconsejan reservar las mascarillas filtering face piece (FFP) para el personal sanitario, especialmente en la realización de procedimientos generadores de aerosoles (PGA) (protección mínima de FFP2), y plantean posibles sistemas de reutilización durante épocas de escasez. Asimismo, se recomienda el uso de mascarillas quirúrgicas en profesionales que no realicen PGA y en población sintomática, existiendo variación en las indicaciones de uso para población general sana. En situaciones de escasez de equipos de protección individual por pandemia de COVID-19 se debe establecer una priorización y racionalización de uso de cada tipo de mascarilla en función del usuario y de la actividad a realizar.

(1) Background: Adverse events (AE) affect about 1 in 10 hospitalised patients, and almost half are related to surgical care. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of AE in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments in order to determine whether surgical treatment is a risk factor for AE. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional design that included 3123 patients of 34 public hospitals in the Community of Madrid determining the prevalence of AEs in operated and non-operated patients in surgical departments. (3) Results: The prevalence of AE in non-operated patients was 8.7% and in those operated was 15.8%. The frequency of AE was higher in emergency surgery (20.6% vs. 12.4%). The 48.3% of AEs led to an increase in hospital stay, and surgery was involved in 92.4% of cases. The most frequent AEs were related to hospital-acquired infection (42.63%), followed by those related to a procedure (37.72%). In the multivariate analysis, being operated on represented 2.3 times the risk of developing an AE. (4) Conclusions: Surgical sites are particularly vulnerable to AE. Surgical intervention alone is a risk factor for AE, and we must continue to work to improve the safety of both patient care and the working environment of surgical professionals.

(1) Background: Identifying and measuring adverse events (AE) is a priority for patient safety, which allows us to define and prioritise areas for improvement and evaluate and develop solutions to improve health care quality. The aim of this work was to determine the prevalence of AEs in surgical and medical-surgical departments and to know the health impact of these AEs. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study determining the prevalence of AEs in surgical and medical-surgical departments was conducted and a comparison was made among both clinical areas. A total of 5228 patients were admitted in 58 hospitals in Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Peru, within the Latin American Study of Adverse Events (IBEAS), led by the Spanish Ministry of Health, the Pan American Health Organization, and the WHO Patient Safety programme. (3) Results: The global prevalence of AEs was 10.7%. However, the prevalence of AEs in surgical departments was 11.9%, while in medical-surgical departments it was 8.9%. The causes of these AEs were associated with surgical procedures (38.6%) and nosocomial infections (35.4%). About 60.6% of the AEs extended hospital stays by 30.7 days on average and 25.8% led to readmission with an average hospitalisation of 15 days. About 22.4% resulted in death, disability, or surgical reintervention. (4) Conclusions: Surgical departments were associated with a higher risk of experiencing AEs.