Clairel - Thanks for sharing the link. Perhaps my Pythonesque imagination was being over-active when I read your topic heading and thought it was a reference to long scaly creatures with big jaws and lots of teeth inhabiting water features at hospitals. However, I'd never heard of crocs as a term for semi-open rubber shoes before, so the topic has broadened my knowledge and perhaps that of others.

Now a somewhat jocular question: If the banning of footwear crocs is "for once" a H&S measure with which you actually agree, are forum users entitled to deduce that you do not agree with all other H&S measures?!!

On a more serious note, hopefully some forum users with experience of hospitals and similar healthcare type premises will comment on the prevalence and severity of injuries to staff associated with wearing crocs and similar open or semi-open footwear? Presumably some staff prefer such footwear in order to minimise problems associated with hot sweaty feet due to working in a significantly warm environment. If there is a good case against such footwear, are staff provided with or at least advised about suitable footwear which will resist piercing by a syringe plunging downwards needle-first?

The reasons given for the ban is that there is a risk of sharps being caught in the feet. I read this in a Welsh paper and it seemed to me yet another knock at H&S. I was wondering how many incidents of stick injuries have taken place over say five or ten years, perhaps someone within the health sector can tell us? It does seem a trivial issue but without all the facts (something the papers fail to provide) how do assess the level of risk????

I have never dealt with hospital environment so I don't know if this ban is sensible, not seen the evidence for and against. But the hospital has now seen a risk and applied shoes as a control measure. Are they now providing the shoes as they have become PPE. They will need to specify what protection is needed surly. What happens if someone comes in with canvas deck shoes? Or other foot wear that does not provide adequate protection?

I am assuming this about 'sharps' that are not deposited in 'sharp bins' or being dropped onto the foot in which case the recommendation of fully enclosed footwear i.e. a normal leather shoe, would not be sufficient as the needle would easily penetrate through. Maybe they should agree to 'fully enclosed steel capped safety boots'. It has not been though and it seems to me no account taken of the PPE Regs.

Barnaby

Sensible shoes yes - other reasons yes - because there is a risk of needle stick injury then no its protective equipment because a specific safety hazard has been defined. Its sensible to wear steal toe caps on a building site but you would not expect staff to buy there own?

As someone who works in the NHS, this has came about after the NHS released a safety action notice, on staff in certain areas (theatres etc) having sharps going through the sole of the shoe. The notice, correctly states, that if managers identify that their is a risk of sharps on the floor, scalpels etc, then Crocs are not suitable PPE.

These shoes conform to most uniform policies of having an enclosed toe and heel, they are not designed to offer PPE protection. Crocs "genuine ones" are marketed as slip resistant, and used by thousands of nursing staff the world over.

I would be more concerned as to why there are needles on the floor and, as stated; the requirements of an "enclosed toe and heel" shoe would make no difference.

The hierarchy of control would suggest eliminating the risk firstly as any person could end up with the needle in their foot, patient, visitor, child etc.

If the organisation feels there is a particular risk to staff and these shoes have been banned, then you would have to ban all sorts of other shoes with a similar sole and possible look at issuing PPE footwear with a steel insole, obviously OTT. (at the moment NHS does not provide staff with footwear, they buy their own, unless its PPE)

The biggest problem with crocs type shoe (as Crocs is a brand name, we really shouldn’t be singling them out). Is that staff put the plastic strap that should go round the heel, around the front of the foot, allowing staff to “walk out” the back of them increasing the risk of slips, trips.

I know of no incidents where a member of staff has received a needlestick injury due to either a needle going through the sole of the shoe, or through the plastic cover or even the million to one shot, going through the holes, but as they say “how many times have million to one shots occurred”

We have had a ban on sandals , crocks, clogs etc for the last 10 years. In health care environments where assistance with movement is required it is essential that you have a firm radial base and your feet are fully supported. Opened backed footwear dose not facilitate this, you also have to have covered shoes to minimise the risks from contact with moving and handling equipment etc. I agree with Claire highly sensible.

Bob

Re #3

Who would want blood soaking into their socks and on to skin?