Slip-resistant footwear to reduce slips among health-care workers: the SSHeW RCT
Authors: Cockayne Sarah , Fairhurst Caroline , Zand Michael , Frost Gillian , Liddle Mark , Cunningham-Burley Rachel , Hewitt Catherine , Iles-Smith Heather , Green Lorraine , Bain Emily , Mogradia Misbah , Torgerson David J 
Published: February 2021

Background

In Great Britain, 100,000 injuries due to slips, trips and falls on the level (as opposed to falls from a height, e.g. a ladder) occur in the workplace each year. They are the most common cause of non-fatal injury in the workplace, accounting for 30% of all those injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Nearly 1 million working days are lost because of slips, trips and falls each year.

Objectives

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 5-star, GRIP-rated, slip-resistant footwear in preventing slips in the workplace compared with usual footwear.

Design

A two-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.

Setting

Seven NHS trusts in England.

Participants

NHS staff aged ≥ 18 years, working at least 22.5 hours per week in clinical, general or catering areas who owned a mobile phone. Staff required to wear protective footwear were excluded.

Interventions

Intervention participants were offered 5-star, GRIP-rated, slip-resistant footwear. The waiting list control group were asked to wear their usual work shoes for the duration of the study and were offered the trial footwear at the end of their participation.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was the incidence rate of self-reported slips in the workplace over 14 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the incidence rate of falls either resulting from a slip or not resulting from a slip, proportion of participants reporting a slip, fall or fracture, time to first slip and fall, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Results

A total of 4553 eligible NHS staff were randomised (2275 to the intervention arm and 2278 to the control arm). In total, 6743 slips were reported [2633 in the intervention group (mean 1.16 per participant, range 0–36 per participant) and 4110 in the control group (mean 1.80 per participant, range 0–83 per participant)]. There was a statistically significant reduction in the slip rate in the intervention group relative to the control group (incidence rate ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.70;p < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions were observed in falls from a slip (incidence rate ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.92;p = 0.03), the proportion of participants who reported a slip (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.66;p < 0.001) or fall (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.99;p = 0.04) and the time to first slip (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.80;p < 0.001). Half of the intervention participants wore the shoes all the time at work. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year in the base case was £38,900 from the NHS perspective and –£60,400 (i.e. cost saving) from the societal perspective.

Limitations

This was an unblinded trial in which outcome data were participant self-reported, which may have led to inaccuracies in the reported slip data. Exposure to the trial footwear was lower than hoped.

Conclusions

The offer and provision of 5-star, GRIP-rated footwear reduced slips in the workplace, was acceptable to participants and could be cost-effective.

Future work

Replication of the study within other settings may be required to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in other environments settings, such as catering and factories.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33051393.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full inPublic Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Public Journals Library website for further project information. The Health and Safety Executive provided some research costs.