Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AMedP-1.10
Military medical and health service personnel and the commanders responsible for a Major Incident or mass casualty response
AMedP-1.10 is NATO doctrine on the medical principles for planning for and managing a major incident or mass casualty situation, which nations agree to use under STANAG 2879.
AMedP-1.10 is a NATO Allied Medical Publication (AMedP) that sets out shared medical principles for planning for and managing a Major Incident or a Mass Casualty (MASCAL) situation. In the document's own terms, a Major Incident is "a critical incident where the number, severity, or type of medical cases to treat, or its location, requires extraordinary resources and procedures", and a MASCAL situation is a Major Incident that overwhelms the available medical capability even with extraordinary measures in use. Edition B, Version 1 was promulgated in October 2021 and superseded Edition A, Version 1 on receipt. Nations' agreement to use the publication is recorded in STANAG 2879, which is how AMedP-1.10 acquires force: the STANAG is the agreement, and this publication is the specification it covers.
AMedP-1.10 is written for military medical and health service personnel, and for the commanders who carry overall responsibility for a Major Incident/MASCAL response, within the armed forces of nations that use STANAG 2879. It does not name a supplier, manufacturer or notified body as an addressee. As with any NATO standardization agreement, ratification and implementation are separate steps, and a nation can ratify with reservations to specific paragraphs, as several nations did for this edition at the time of promulgation. The document describes no separate contract mechanism that carries it to a private company; where a company's work touches AMedP-1.10, it is because a national military customer's own doctrine, or a contract built on top of it, calls for something the publication describes.
Chapter 1 states the aim, defines Major Incident and MASCAL, and makes clear that providing adequate medical and military capability is a matter of national responsibility, and that managing the response is a commander's responsibility requiring a coordinated, multi-agency effort that can include civilian resources. Chapter 2 works through what preparatory planning has to cover: assessing hazards and risk, including CBRN hazards specific to an area of operations; identifying available resources, agencies and evacuation assets; defining responsibilities and a command and control structure; and putting communication arrangements in place. It requires all military personnel to hold first-aid training and personnel who may deploy on operations to hold military acute trauma care training, and it requires units to exercise and review their Major Incident/MASCAL plans regularly. It sets out the organisational functions and coordination roles a response is expected to establish under the overall responsibility of the on-scene commander, and it addresses the categorisation (triage) of casualties for treatment priority, a subject it works through in its own detail. It covers the additional considerations that apply when an incident occurs under chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear conditions, principles for prioritising medical evacuation by casualty severity and available transport, and the medical and general supply provisioning a Major Incident/MASCAL situation demands, since normal re-supply is often too slow. Annex A lists the related NATO documents the publication draws on, and Annex B is a glossary of abbreviations.
AMedP-1.10 sets out principles and organisational requirements; the more detailed clinical and technical procedures for CBRN casualty handling, aeromedical evacuation, and the wider medical support doctrine it sits under are covered in the separate publications listed in Annex A, not repeated here. The document's own record of reservations includes two scope limits the United Kingdom noted at promulgation: that it "does not provide comprehensive guidance for MASCAL scenarios of a significant scale", and that it "does not fully align with CBRN Major Incident guidelines" - both recommending NATO develop the doctrine further rather than disputing what exists. It names no certification, accreditation or third-party assessment scheme, and no organisation is certified or assessed against it: nations confirm their own readiness through the training, exercises and after-action review the document itself calls for, not through an external audit.
AMedP-1.10 sits under STANAG 2879, its cover, and under the wider STANAG 2228 (Allied Joint Doctrine for Medical Support). It cites STANAG 2122 as the source of the requirement that all military personnel hold first-aid training, and STANAG 2544 for military acute trauma care training. For CBRN casualty handling it points to STANAG 2461 and STANAG 2358, and for aeromedical evacuation to STANAG 2087 and STANAG 3204, stating plainly that "the agreements of STANAG 2087 and STANAG 3204 apply". Annex A also names STANAG 2542 (Allied Joint Medical Planning Doctrine), STANAG 2546 (Allied Joint Medical Doctrine for Medical Evacuation) and STANAG 7179 (fire and emergency services response), alongside MC 0326/4, ACO DIR 83-1 and ACO DIR 80-25, which are outside our catalogue and are named here rather than linked. Most of these are pointed to as further reading; STANAG 2122 and the aeromedical evacuation pair are the exceptions, invoked in more directive terms.
AMedP-1.10 is operational doctrine for military medical services, not a management-system standard, so the honest shape of help here follows from that: the substance of the work is done in the field, not in software. Where a company supports this readiness work - supplying medical materiel or equipment, or providing contracted services for a Major Incident/MASCAL programme - ComplyTrain gives that company a place to hold the paperwork a customer or contract actually asks for: training records evidencing first-aid and trauma-care training completed against STANAG 2122 and STANAG 2544, records of exercises run against a Major Incident/MASCAL plan and their after-action reviews, and equipment or supply records against whatever specification a contract names.
ComplyTrain does not plan or run a Major Incident/MASCAL response, decide how casualties are categorised or moved, or substitute for the command and medical judgement AMedP-1.10 places with commanders and medical officers on the scene. That happens in the field, not in software.
Which standards actually apply to a given piece of work is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause, not by this page. See the standards explorer for what sits alongside AMedP-1.10, and talk to us about the evidence trail behind a contract that touches it.
Tell us how you need to work with AMedP-1.10 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. AMedP-1.10 binds nations, which agree to use it by ratifying STANAG 2879, and a nation can ratify with reservations to specific paragraphs, as several did for this edition. A company meets it only indirectly, where a military customer's own doctrine or a contract built on it calls for something the publication describes.
AMedP-1.10 defines a Major Incident as a critical incident whose scale, severity or location requires extraordinary resources and procedures. A Mass Casualty (MASCAL) situation is a Major Incident that overwhelms the available medical capability even once those extraordinary measures are applied.
Edition B, Version 1, promulgated in October 2021. The Letter of Promulgation states that it is effective on receipt and supersedes Edition A, Version 1, which nations were told to destroy.
No such certification exists. AMedP-1.10 names no certification body, notified body or accredited scheme; it is operational doctrine for NATO nations, their commanders and medical services, not a standard a company is assessed against.
It expects a coordinated response that can include civilian resources and agencies, such as international and non-governmental organisations, alongside military ones. It sets no requirements for what a civilian or host-nation service has to do or hold; it addresses NATO nations' own military medical services and commands.
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.