Are non-slip socks really 'non-slip'? An analysis of slip resistance.
BACKGROUND
Non-slip socks have been suggested as a means of preventing accidental falls due to slips. This study compared the relative slip resistance of commercially available non-slip socks with other foot conditions, namely bare feet, compression stockings and conventional socks, in order to determine any traction benefit.


METHODS
Phase one involved slip resistance testing of two commercially available non-slip socks and one compression-stocking sample through an independent blinded materials testing laboratory using a Wet Pendulum Test.Phase two of the study involved in-situ testing among healthy adult subjects (n = 3). Subjects stood unsupported on a variable angle, inclined platform topped with hospital grade vinyl, in a range of foot conditions (bare feet, non-slip socks, conventional socks and compression stockings). Inclination was increased incrementally for each condition until slippage of any magnitude was detected. The platform angle was monitored using a spatial orientation tracking sensor and slippage point was recorded on video.


RESULTS
Phase one results generated through Wet Pendulum Test suggested that non-slip socks did not offer better traction than compression stockings. However, in phase two, slippage in compression stockings was detected at the lowest angles across all participants. Amongst the foot conditions tested, barefoot conditions produced the highest slip angles for all participants indicating that this foot condition provided the highest slip resistance.


CONCLUSIONS
It is evident that bare feet provide better slip resistance than non-slip socks and therefore might represent a safer foot condition. This study did not explore whether traction provided by bare feet was comparable to 'optimal' footwear such as shoes. However, previous studies have associated barefoot mobilisation with increased falls. Therefore, it is suggested that all patients continue to be encouraged to mobilise in appropriate, well-fitting shoes whilst in hospital. Limitations of this study in relation to the testing method, participant group and sample size are discussed.
Chari
Satyan
S
Safety and Quality Unit, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Queensland Health, Queensland 4029, Australia. srcha5@student.monash.edu.au
Haines
Terrence
T
Varghese
Paul
P
Economidis
Alyssia
A
D000058:Accidental Falls / Q000517:prevention & control; D000328:Adult; D003020:Clothing / Q000592:standards*; D004867:Equipment Design / Q000592:standards; D005260:Female; D005528:Foot; D017276:Friction; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000592:standards*; D011481:Protective Clothing / Q000592:standards; D053828:Stockings, Compression / Q000592:standards; D013499:Surface Properties
Med J Aust. 2006 Apr 17;184(8):379-82
16618235
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Sep;52(9):1495-501
15341551
Gerontology. 2005 Sep-Oct;51(5):329-33
16110235
Age Ageing. 2003 May;32(3):310-4
12720618
Gerontology. 2006;52(3):174-80
16645298
Age Ageing. 2004 Jul;33(4):390-5
15151914
Osteoporos Int. 2007 Feb;18(2):167-75
17061151
Geriatr Nurs. 1996 Jan-Feb;17(1):24-6
8707140
BMJ. 2004 Mar 20;328(7441):676
15031238