Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AJMedP-5
Nations and NATO's COMEDS Health Information Systems and Technology Working Group developing national military health information systems, not suppliers directly
AJMedP-5 is NATO doctrine on medical communications and information systems (HIST) - what capabilities support military health information exchange, and how STANAG 2562 gives it force among nations rather than suppliers.
AJMedP-5 is NATO's Allied Joint Medical Publication for medical communications and information systems, referred to throughout the document as Health Information Systems and Technology, or HIST. Edition B, Version 1 was promulgated in October 2020 and supersedes Edition A, Version 1. Nations record their agreement to use this publication through STANAG 2562: the STANAG is the mechanism that gives AJMedP-5 force among the nations that ratify it, and it is what a contract or tender would ultimately point back to, not this document by itself.
The document names its own purpose plainly: to help stakeholders understand what benefits HIST can bring to Support to Operations, what capabilities are required, and what the medical information exchange requirements are. It also sets out to guide nations, describing itself as providing documentation "for nations wishing to develop national capabilities, which can be integrated into NATO forces." The NATO COMEDS Health Information Systems and Technology Working Group, HIST-WG, is named as the overarching authority for further information, and its four constituent teams (Support to Deployed Operations, Health Information Exploitation and Exchange, Tele-Health, and Innovation, alongside the Medical Information Exchange Requirements Panel) between them advise other NATO bodies, promote interoperability, and develop health and medical data governance and exchange guidance. Nowhere does the text name a supplier, manufacturer or contractor as an addressee: this is doctrine written for nations and NATO bodies, and it says so.
Chapter 4 sets out considerations that apply across any HIST, and patient safety is the first of them. The document identifies four recurring challenges for systems that hold personal medical data or need to exchange health information: service interruptions where electronic records become inaccessible with no reliable non-electronic fallback; the balance between free text and structured data, noting that "when standards are used in addition to discrete data entry, information can more readily be shared across care settings"; a mismatch between commercial off-the-shelf products and the realities of the Medical Pathway; and a set of risks specific to electronic health records around patient identification, tracking the status of user actions, and the effects of importing or copying content between records.
Data management gets its own section, organised around seven headings: availability, quality, integrity, security, data sharing, data storage and control, and archiving. On security, the document states plainly that "The protection of data from either accidental or unauthorized intentional modification, destruction, or disclosure is required in HIST", treating personal medical data as particularly sensitive because clinical decisions depend on it being accurate. On confidentiality specifically, the NATO MEDICS capability document is cited for the principle that "confidentiality will be ensured by tracking patients with ID numbers that are anonymous for NATO", with the working group's own position being that data should be held by the nation and transmitted only when required. Archiving is treated as a downstream concern too: a record's move into long-term storage "should not preclude access by authorized post-service health organizations or civilian systems", which is what allows a veteran's earlier military care to feed into their continuing civilian treatment.
A full section adapts a civilian standards body's nine principles of software usability, covering simplicity, naturalness, consistency, forgiveness and feedback, effective use of language, efficient interactions, effective information presentation, preservation of context, and minimising cognitive load, to HIST specifically. The reasoning given is that "healthcare systems and software developers now deploy substantial resources to consider the needs of users through User Centred Design and User Experience initiatives", and the document adds a complication distinctive to a multinational alliance: a HIST built by one nation and shared for common use may carry language, workflow and design assumptions its other users do not share.
Chapter 5 sets out threshold requirements for two related records. The Operational Electronic Health Record must be built around the NATO Field Medical Card as its agreed baseline format, available at every Role of care from first responder through Role 4, and identifiable through an Enterprise Master Patient Index in a multinational setting. The Electronic Treatment Record is the companion record captured as a patient moves along the Medical Pathway, usable whether or not the patient's identity is yet known. Both are expected to work to NATO's own format standards and recommendations, and the document notes work in progress on the exchange format that STANAG 2563 covers.
The later sections of Chapter 5 cover health surveillance, including syndromic surveillance and EpiNATO, occupational and environmental health, and the handover of records into veterans' health systems once a nation reaches the reconstitution phase. Occupational and environmental exposure data is treated as something that needs a longitudinal approach, since illness from an exposure can surface long after the exposure itself.
AJMedP-5 is published by the NATO Standardization Office. NATO does not charge for its standardization documents, and the Standardization Document Database is the authoritative source. We credit NATO for the catalogue and neither sell nor host a copy ourselves.
Since AJMedP-5 addresses nations and NATO bodies rather than a supplier, there is no clause here for a company to be assessed against directly. Where it becomes relevant to a supplier is once a national defence customer's own specification or contract for a military health information system draws on the capabilities this doctrine describes, whether that is patient-record interoperability, the usability principles it adapts, or the data-management structure it sets out for availability, quality, integrity and security.
At that point, the work is evidencing your own organisation's procedures: documented data-handling and access-control procedures, training records showing staff understand them, and an audit trail showing they were followed, kept current and ready to hand to whoever is assessing your contract. ComplyTrain holds that kind of documentation, training record and audit evidence generally; it does not build a health information system, does not hold or exchange patient data itself, and cannot tell you which of AJMedP-5's related AMedPs and STANAGs your particular contract invokes.
Which specific document and tier apply is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, never by us. The standards explorer shows the wider family of medical Allied Publications AJMedP-5 sits alongside, and we're glad to talk through where a specific one leaves your obligations.
Tell us how you need to work with AJMedP-5 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
No. AJMedP-5 is NATO doctrine addressed to nations and NATO's COMEDS Health Information Systems and Technology Working Group; it names no supplier, manufacturer or contractor role anywhere in the text. It reaches a company only when a national customer's own contract or specification for a military health information system reflects what it describes.
HIST is the document's own term for Health Information Systems and Technology: the systems and technology nations use to handle medical information and personal medical data in support of military operations.
No. STANAG 2562 is the agreement by which nations record their commitment to use AJMedP-5; the STANAG is what gives the doctrine its force, and AJMedP-5 is the Allied Joint Medical Publication that carries the content itself.
No. The document describes capabilities and considerations for national health information systems; it names no accreditation body, audit scheme or certificate, and no organisation is certified against it.
This page describes Edition B, Version 1, promulgated in October 2020, which supersedes Edition A, Version 1.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.