Table 2 Features of recognition and response systems, 2010 and 2015
From: Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?
|  | 2010 n = 220 (%) | 2015 n = 276 (%) |
|---|---|---|
Written policies for observations | 168 (77%) | 270 (97%) |
 Minimum frequency and observations required | 106 (63%) | 243 (96%) |
 Policy applies to all patients | 139 (82%) | 248 (97%) |
Escalation protocols | 170 (77%) | 256 (98%) |
 Includes a graded response | 76 (45%) | 230 (93%) |
Early warning systems or track/trigger | 77 (35%) | 244 (96%) |
 Track and trigger actions incorporated into chart | 30 (39%) | 195 (81%) |
 Single or multi-parameter systems | 45 (58%) | 169 (71%) |
 Combined system (calling criteria and score) | 20 (26%) | 38 (16%) |
 Required calculation of a score (such as MEWS) | 8 (10%) | 11 (5%) |
Origin of chart useda | ||
 State chart | – | 125 (50%) |
 Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care | – | 69 (28%) |
 Local chart | – | 33 (13%) |
 Combination | – | 23 (10%) |
 Use structured protocol for handover communication | 110 (50%) | 237 (95%) |