BACKGROUND: It is known that heel offloading devices are widely used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers, even though there is a lack of robust, good quality evidence to inform their use.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how and why heel offloading devices are used (or not used) and reasoning behind their use in population at high risk of developing heel pressure ulcers.
METHODS: An ethnographic study was conducted as part of a realist evaluation in three orthopaedic wards in a large English hospital. Twelve observations took place, with 49 h and 35 min of patient care observed. A total of 32 patients were observed and 19 members of the nursing team were interviewed and in-depth interviews with the three ward managers were conducted.
RESULTS: Although the focus of the study was on offloading devices, constant low pressure heel specific devices were also observed in use for pressure ulcer prevention, whilst offloading devices were perceived to be for higher risk patients or those already with a heel pressure ulcer. Nursing staff viewed leadership from the ward manager and the influence of the Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists as key mechanisms for the proactive use of devices.
CONCLUSIONS: This study informs trial design as it has identified that a controlled clinical trial of both types of heel specific devices is required to inform evidence-based practice. Involving the ward managers and Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists during set up phase for clinical equipoise could improve recruitment. Tweetable abstract How, for whom, and in what circumstances do devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Observations of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Heel pressure ulcers can cause pain, reduce mobility, lead to longer hospital stays and in severe cases can lead to sepsis, amputation, and death. Offloading boots are marketed as heel pressure ulcer prevention devices, working by removing pressure to the heel, yet there is little good quality evidence about their clinical effectiveness. Given that evidence is not guiding use of these devices, this study aims to explore, how, when, and why these devices are used in hospital settings.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how offloading devices are used to prevent heel pressure ulcers, for whom and in what circumstances.
METHODS: A realist evaluation was undertaken to explore the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that might influence how offloading devices are implemented and used in clinical practice for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers in hospitals. Eight Tissue Viability Nurse Specialists from across the UK (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) were interviewed. Questions sought to elicit whether, and in what ways, initial theories about the use of heel pressure ulcers fitted with interviewee\'s experiences.
RESULTS: Thirteen initial theories were refined into three programme theories about how offloading devices are used by nurses \'proactively\' to prevent heel pressure ulcers, \'reactively\' to treat and minimise deterioration of early-stage pressure ulcers, and patient factors that influence how these devices are used.
CONCLUSIONS: Offloading devices were used in clinical practice by all the interviewees. It was viewed that they were not suitable to be used by every patient, at every point in their inpatient journey, nor was it financially viable. However, the interviewees thought that identifying suitable \'at risk\' patient groups that can maintain use of the devices could lead to proactive and cost-effective use of the devices. This understanding of the contexts and mechanisms that influence the effective use of offloading devices has implications for clinical practice and design of clinical trials of offloading devices.
CONCLUSIONS: How, for whom, and in what circumstances do offloading devices work to prevent heel pressure ulcers? Tissue viability nurses\' perspectives.

Heel pressure ulcer is a major complication in elderly hospitalized patients. The association with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) which is also a frequent disease in this population is poorly known. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of PAD and critical limb ischemia (CLI) in patients with heel pressure ulcer. Patients referred to the vascular medicine department for heel pressure ulcer from October 2014 to June 2015 were included in the study. The assessment of peripheral arterial disease was made with the results of ankle brachial index and/or doppler ultra sound of lower limb arteries. Toe systolic pressure and transcutaneous pressure (TcPO2) were also recorded, and the diagnosis of critical limb ischemia was made according to the TASC 2 criteria. The population was composed with 42 patients (women 43%, men 57%). The mean age was 81±11 years. Heel pressures ulcers were diagnosed in the following situations: lower limb fracture (31%), acute medical illness (21%), multiple chronic conditions (28%) and critical care unit hospitalization (7%). A peripheral arterial disease was present in 31 patients (73%), and a critical limb ischemia in 7 patients. For 18 patients, PAD was not known in their past medical history, and this was the case of 5 patients among those with critical limb ischemia. A revascularization was performed in 12 patients, and 5 patients undergo a lower limb amputation. 12 patients were died at 3 months. PAD is frequent among patients with heel pressure ulcer, and is often unknown. The functional and vital prognostic are poor, and the results of our study emphasize the importance of screening PAD in the evaluation of heel pressure ulcer risk.

The aim was to investigate the effect of an early intervention, a heel suspension device boot, on the incidence of heel pressure ulcers among older patients (aged 70+).
BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers are a global healthcare issue; furthermore, the heel is an exposed location. Research indicates that preventive nursing interventions starting during the ambulance care and used across the acute care delivery chain are seldom used.
METHODS: A multi-centre randomized control study design was used. Five ambulance stations, two emergency departments and 16 wards at two Swedish hospitals participated. Altogether, 183 patients were transferred by ambulance to the emergency department and were thereafter admitted to one of the participating wards.
RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group (n=15 of 103; 14.6%) than the control group (n=24 of 80; 30%) developed heel pressure ulcers during their hospital stay (p=0.017).
CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcer prevention should start early in the acute care delivery chain to increase patient safety.

The heel continues to be one of the most common sites of pressure damage. This article reviews the anatomy and physiology of the heel and explores significant risk factors, including those found in the critically ill patient. Interventions to prevent heel pressure ulceration by offloading the heel are explored. An evaluation of the Nimbus 4 alternating pressure mattress was undertaken within an intensive care unit (ICU) to consider the efficacy of its unique Wound Valve Technology, which is designed to help prevent heel pressure ulceration. During the evaluation period none of the patients using the Nimbus 4 developed a pressure ulcer. Staff observed that the Wound Valves provided effective pressure redistribution and, although the cells frequently needed to be adjusted, patient safety was maintained throughout. The Wound Valves were most effective on patients who were less prone to voluntary movement.