Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
AMedP-9.3
Lead Nations and Participating Nations credentialing and privileging health care professionals for a NATO Role 2/3 multinational medical unit
AMedP-9.3 sets out how a Lead Nation and each Participating Nation verify a health care professional's qualifications and licence, and how a Deployed Medical Director grants them privileges to practise in a NATO Role 2/3 multinational medical unit.
AMedP-9.3 is the NATO Allied Medical Publication that sets out how health care professionals are credentialed and privileged before they take up a post in a Role 2/3 multinational medical unit (MMU). "This policy will apply to all Role 2/3MMUs, established within the context of a Combined Joint Task Force, where participating Nations (PNs) contribute health care personnel." It is a short, two-chapter document: definitions and a professional-standards policy, then the responsibilities of the Lead Nation, the contributing nation and the unit's own medical leadership. It does not cover how a Role 2/3 MMU is organised, staffed or equipped in general - that is other documents' territory.
"The agreement of nations to use this publication is recorded in STANAG 6526": the STANAG is the agreement nations make to use AMedP-9.3, and this document carries the procedure itself. The publication took effect on receipt in August 2020. There is no contract-clause route into it for a commercial supplier: it obliges the nations contributing health care personnel to a Role 2/3 MMU, not a defence supply chain.
The document defines "Credentials" as "the documents describing the education, training, licensing and certification of a health care professional," and "Credentialing" as "the process of obtaining, assessing and verifying" them. Each Participating Nation is responsible for credentialing the health care professionals it contributes, and as a minimum that verification covers: the individual's requisite qualifications; their professional registration with "the appropriate national regulatory body," including confirmation they are "not subject to any professional censure or disciplinary or legal limitations to their practice," and, where relevant, their standing on a national specialist register; medical and dental fitness for the role; language skills, including medical terminology; the experience and clinical currency the Lead Nation sets for the post; and completion of military-specific pre-deployment training. The Surgeon General of the Participating Nation, or a designated deputy, carries out this verification and gives the Lead Nation written confirmation that its professionals "are credentialed, in according with this AMedP." Fitness for role is checked "in accordance with AMedP-4.4". Credentialing itself "must take place as early as reasonably practicable," and applies equally to every nation contributing to a given facility.
Credentialing establishes that a professional is qualified in general; privileging is the separate decision, made inside the unit by the Deployed Medical Director (DMD), of exactly what that professional is authorised to do there. The document defines "Privileges" as the scope of practice and procedures a professional "is authorised to independently perform." Recognition across nations is pragmatic rather than a fresh assessment from scratch: confirming privileges "may simply be an endorsement of the privileges at the Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) where the individual usually practices, if the DMD deems the privileges appropriate for the Role 2/3MMU." Once someone is in post, the DMD keeps that decision under review through "the embedded Clinical Supervision program" and "a periodic review process to assure Clinical Quality Assurance," and can modify privileges working with the unit's Medical Commander or the contingent's own commander. Every health care professional is expected to "practice within the scope of privileges assigned by the DMD."
AMedP-9.3 does not say how a professional's credentialing record is stored, protected or retained once verified - it requires the verification and a written confirmation that it took place, and goes no further. It names no data-protection regime. What it does rely on is the professional's own existing civil standing: the document describes a health care professional as "registered/licensed" by "the appropriate regulatory/professional body," and asks the credentialing nation to confirm with "the appropriate national regulatory body" that no censure, discipline or legal limitation applies. The national licence or registration itself is not something this document, or NATO, issues or holds; it belongs to the individual clinician under their own national law.
AMedP-9.3 "complements" STANAG 2560, which evaluates a Role 2/3 MMU's own medical capability - a separate exercise from credentialing the individuals who staff it. It also ties one specific check, medical and dental fitness, to AMedP-4.4. Beyond those, and the STANAG 6526 agreement that gives it force, it names no other standard.
AMedP-9.3 describes a verification and endorsement process carried out by people, not software: a Participating Nation's Surgeon General verifies a professional's qualifications and licence, and a unit's Deployed Medical Director decides and reviews what that person may do. ComplyTrain does not verify anyone's qualifications, confirm a professional's registration status with a national regulator, or grant privileges to practise - those decisions stay exactly where the document puts them.
Where a record-keeping platform fits this kind of document is the evidence trail those decisions leave behind. In general terms, ComplyTrain can hold the credentialing record compiled for each professional, the Surgeon General's written confirmation that credentialing is complete, the DMD's privileging decision and any later change to it, and the dates a periodic review fell due and was carried out - kept in one place and easy to produce if a Lead Nation or an auditor asks for it.
What ComplyTrain does not do: it does not assess a clinician's competence, it does not stand in for a national regulatory body, and it does not decide what a health care professional may practise inside a Role 2/3 MMU. Which standards apply to a given deployment is set by the tasking and the customer's own quality clause, not by us. The standards explorer shows what else sits alongside AMedP-9.3, and we are glad to talk through what a specific requirement is asking for.
Tell us how you need to work with AMedP-9.3 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 6526, the agreement recording nations' commitment to use this publication. AMedP-9.3 itself describes no separate contract or tender mechanism: the trigger is a nation contributing health care professionals to a Role 2/3 multinational medical unit.
No. AMedP-9.3 names no accredited or notified certification body, and no organisation is assessed against it. What it describes is a Participating Nation verifying an individual professional's own national licence or registration, which that person holds under national law, not a certificate a company or unit can earn.
Credentialing is the Participating Nation's verification that a professional holds the right qualifications, registration, fitness and training in general. Privileging is the separate decision, made by the unit's Deployed Medical Director, of exactly what that credentialed professional is authorised to do inside that particular Role 2/3 multinational medical unit.
STANAG 2560 evaluates a Role 2/3 multinational medical unit's own medical capability. AMedP-9.3 "complements" that process by covering the credentialing and privileging of the individual professionals contributed to the unit, which is a separate question from whether the unit itself is capable.
Edition A, Version 1, promulgated in August 2020 and effective on receipt. The document does not identify an earlier edition it supersedes.
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.