What is an Escalation Protocol?

The "Golden Hour" and Why Response Time Matters

For lone workers, the primary risk multiplier is not the hazard itself, but the time spent undiscovered. In emergency medicine, the "Golden Hour" refers to the critical period following trauma when prompt treatment prevents death. Without an escalation protocol, a worker incapacitated in a remote location may remain undiscovered until the end of their shift—potentially 8 to 10 hours later.

Escalation protocols compress this "Discovery Time" from hours to minutes by automating the detection of distress signals and the absence of activity. A worker who suffers a cardiac arrest cannot press a panic button, making passive detection through missed check-ins equally critical to active alarms.

The protocol also eliminates "Decision Latency." In high-stress situations, supervisors may hesitate, uncertain whether to escalate immediately or investigate first. A properly designed protocol removes this ambiguity by creating a "Decision Rail"—once triggered, it follows a fixed path to emergency response unless actively diverted by verified safety.

Legal and Regulatory Context

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers. WHS Regulation 48 specifically addresses remote and isolated work, mandating "effective communication" with workers.

Regulatory guidance from Safe Work Australia clarifies that "effective communication" is not satisfied by merely providing a mobile phone. There must be a system to detect when communication fails and a plan to respond. This is the legal foundation of escalation protocols.

In Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, Industrial Manslaughter laws mean a worker death due to inadequate monitoring could result in criminal charges and fines exceeding $16 million. A documented, tested escalation protocol serves as primary evidence of "Due Diligence."

Internationally, British Standard BS 8484:2022 provides technical specifications for lone worker services. It mandates that Alarm Receiving Centres (ARCs) respond to alarms within 10 seconds for 80% of activations, establishing the performance benchmark for professional monitoring services.

Escalation Trigger Types

Different events trigger protocols at varying urgency levels. Understanding these distinctions is critical for designing appropriate responses.

The Verification Layer: Filtering False Alarms

Once a trigger is received, the protocol enters a verification phase to distinguish genuine emergencies from false alarms—critical for maintaining credibility with emergency services and preventing "alert fatigue" among supervisors.

Modern devices employ a local grace period (typically 10–30 seconds) after detecting a fall or impact. The device vibrates and beeps, allowing the worker to cancel locally if unharmed. This simple feedback eliminates significant false positives at source.

If the pre-alert expires, the signal transmits to the Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC). Operators attempt verification through audio monitoring (listening for distress sounds), two-way voice communication, and location context analysis. BS 8484 mandates that if verification cannot be confirmed, the protocol must assume a genuine emergency and escalate—the benefit of doubt always rests with worker safety.

For workers in hostile environments, "Safe Word" or "Duress Code" protocols enable discreet signalling. If an operator asks "Are you safe?" and the worker responds with their pre-arranged safe word, the operator knows to dispatch emergency services while appearing to conclude the call normally.

Notification Hierarchy

Verified incidents activate a notification tree progressing through escalating levels of authority:

• Primary Contact (Immediate Supervisor) – Usually has context about the worker's current task and may be physically close enough to investigate
• Secondary Contact (Site Manager/Safety Officer) – Backup if primary is unreachable within defined timeframe

Advanced protocols use dynamic routing based on business hours and roster availability. After-hours alerts route to on-call duty managers or professional ARCs, preventing the "dead end" scenario where notifications reach someone who is asleep or on leave.

Emergency Services Integration

The final tier engages public emergency services (Police, Ambulance, Fire). Effectiveness depends entirely on data quality. Professional ARCs are trained to provide structured handovers rather than vague alerts:

• Who: Worker name, age, known medical conditions
• Where: GPS coordinates plus descriptive location details

In the UK, BS 8484 accredited ARCs access guaranteed Level 1 Police response through the URN (Unique Reference Number) system. In Australia, professional ARCs maintain operational lines to State Police communications centres, ensuring priority access over the public queue.

False alarms drain public resources—Fire and Rescue services charge substantial levies for false alarm attendance (exceeding $750 in NSW for repeat offenders). This makes the verification layer both operationally and financially essential.

Testing and Maintenance Requirements

A protocol existing only on paper creates liability rather than safety. Regular testing is mandatory:

Live Drills: Conduct scheduled drills where workers activate alarms with prior ARC notification to prevent actual police dispatch. Measure "Total Loop Time" from button press to supervisor contact—targets should be under 2 minutes.

Contact Verification: High staff turnover means contact lists become outdated rapidly. Monthly audits ensure the "Primary Contact" isn't a manager who left six months ago.

Privacy Considerations: Protocols must be framed as "Protection, not Policing." Transparency about when location data is accessed (only during alarms) maintains worker trust and complies with privacy legislation. ISO 45003 emphasises that surveillance-style monitoring creates psychosocial hazards rather than reducing them.