Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AMedP-1.1
Blood establishments licensed or registered by NATO or PIAG nations, the national authorities managing blood on operations, and suppliers of transfusion equipment and consumables
AMedP-1.1 sets NATO's minimum requirements for blood, blood donors and associated equipment, agreed by nations under STANAG 2939, so that blood collected, tested, processed, labelled, transported and stored to its terms can be used across NATO and PIAG forces.
AMedP-1.1 is the NATO Allied Medical Publication that sets minimum requirements for blood, blood donors and associated equipment, so that blood and blood components collected, tested, processed, labelled, transported and stored to its terms can be exchanged between NATO Forces. Its own aim is "a regulatory framework to enable the provision of blood and blood components as near to the point of need as practicable," letting blood move between nations by fixing minimum requirements the whole alliance can rely on. The scope covers whole blood, red blood cells, plasma, cryoprecipitate and platelets, stored fresh, refrigerated, frozen or dried.
Participating Nations agree, in the document's own words, "that blood and blood components used for transfusion by or in support of NATO will be collected, tested, processed, labelled, transported, stored, and tracked in compliance with the requirements described in this agreement." That agreement is recorded in STANAG 2939: AMedP-1.1 is the technical content, STANAG 2939 is what commits a nation to it, and a nation can ratify with reservations, as several have here against specific clauses reflecting their own national legislation on blood donation, collection and cross-border transport. For an organisation, the practical route in is rarely the STANAG directly: it is a national licence to operate as a registered blood establishment, or a contract or tender that names AMedP-1.1's companion standards-related document, SRD-1, for transfusion equipment.
AMedP-1.1 sorts blood and blood components into three categories by where they come from, and each carries its own risk profile that a medical planner has to weigh alongside infection risk, clinical effectiveness, logistic constraints and the estimated operational requirement.
establishment, to standards that "meet or exceed those laid down by competent authorities of the respective NATO and PIAG Nations."
emergency blood collection for immediate transfusion to a known casualty or as a contingency collection for storage and later issue. The document requires that individuals responsible for authorising, managing, collecting or transfusing this blood "must be assessed by their Nation as competent," and that procedures exist to address documentation, traceability and haemovigilance.
plainly that it "cannot assure the quality of blood and blood components in this category," and requires a risk assessment wherever it is used.
This page does not set out the donor-screening, testing or storage detail underneath Categories 2 and 3: that is exactly the kind of clinical and procedural material the document itself reserves to national protocols and a nation's appropriately qualified personnel, not something a reader should take from a summary.
Two further provisions matter to a supplier or a nation planning around this document. First, on equipment: "blood transfusion equipment and consumables used on operations must be in accordance with applicable form, fit and function and the specifications in standards-related document (SRD)-1 to AMedP-1.1" - the testable detail lives in SRD-1, not in AMedP-1.1's own text. Second, on responsibility once blood changes hands between nations: the supplying nation carries "overall assurance of blood and blood components from donation to final disposition," the receiving nation has to show it can demonstrate compliance with the supplying nation's own traceability processes, and whichever nation holds custody is responsible for compliance during transport and storage. The document also covers administrative ABO blood group identification of personnel, on identity discs or cards, for planning and emergency use, but is explicit that this is an administrative aid and "should not be routinely accepted as a substitute for blood typing of the donor or recipient."
Annex A lists other blood-labelling systems and blood-safety frameworks the document sits alongside, without stating that meeting AMedP-1.1 satisfies any of them or the reverse: ISBT code 128 and the MONARCH and Eurocode IBLS labelling systems; the US Code of Federal Regulations Title 21; AABB's Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services; the UK's Blood Standards and Quality Regulations; Health Canada's blood regulations guidance; two Council of Europe/EDQM documents (a Blood Supply Contingency and Emergency Plan, and a Guide to the Preparation, Use and Quality Assurance of Blood Components); EU Directive 2002/98/CE on the quality and safety of human blood and blood components; and the EU's regulation on substances of human origin. None of these is a NATO relation in our catalogue, so none is linked here.
AMedP-1.1 is an operational and technical NATO standard, not a management-system one, and the substantive work, collecting, testing, storing and transfusing blood, happens in a nation's medical services and blood establishments, not in software. Where ComplyTrain fits is the evidence trail around that work: the record of a blood establishment's national licence or registration and its renewal dates; the procedure and configuration record tying a transfusion equipment purchase to the form, fit and function specifications in SRD-1; and the training record showing which individuals a nation has assessed as competent to collect, manage or transfuse blood on operations, refreshed on whatever cycle the nation sets.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not license a blood establishment, assess an individual's competency to handle blood, or specify, test or supply transfusion equipment. Which of AMedP-1.1, SRD-1 and STANAG 2939 actually applies to a given programme is set by a nation's own regulatory framework and the contract or tender in front of a supplier, not by this page. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AMedP-1.1, and we are glad to talk through what a specific tender or requirement is asking for.
Tell us how you need to work with AMedP-1.1 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.
It binds through STANAG 2939, the NATO agreement recording Participating Nations' agreement to use this publication; a nation can ratify with reservations, and several have. For an organisation, it typically arrives as a national licensing requirement for a blood establishment, or a contract or tender specifying SRD-1 for transfusion equipment.
No. AMedP-1.1 describes no certification scheme of its own. Category 1 status depends on a blood establishment already being licensed or registered by its own nation's competent authority, to standards that authority sets, not on any NATO-run assessment or certificate.
AMedP-1.1 sets the minimum requirements and the regulatory framework for blood, blood donors and associated equipment. SRD-1 is the standards-related document that carries the detailed specifications, including the form, fit and function requirements for transfusion equipment and consumables, that AMedP-1.1 itself points to rather than restates.
They describe where blood comes from, not its quality in the abstract. Category 1 is manufactured by a licensed or registered blood establishment; Category 2 is collected on operations, outside such an establishment, for emergency or contingency use; Category 3 is blood not collected or processed by a NATO or PIAG nation at all, which NATO states it cannot assure the quality of.
AMedP-1.1's Annex A names several civil frameworks, including EU Directive 2002/98/CE and AABB's Standards for Blood Banks and Transfusion Services, as related documents. It does not state that meeting AMedP-1.1 satisfies them, or that they satisfy AMedP-1.1; each stands on its own regulatory or professional basis.
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.