Version 2.

3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

AMedP 27

NATO

MEDICAL EVALUATION MANUAL

1-1

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION

1 1 Background
1 2 Aim
1 3 Scope
1 4 Guidance
1 5 Evaluation

Chapter 2 - DEFINITIONS

2 1 General definitions
2 2 Evaluation levels
2 3 Readiness categories

Chapter 3 APPLICATION OF THE TOOL

3 1 Introduction
3 2 Responsibilities
3 3 Evaluation / Validation / Certification authority
3 4 Scope and depth of evaluation
3 5 Multi-national evaluation process
3 6 The evaluation process
3 7 Application of the MEM

Chapter 4 EVALUATION TEAM

4 1 Introduction
4 2 Responsibilities
4 3 Composition
4 4 Task
4 5 Evaluator qualifications
4 6 Reporting

Chapter 5 REPORTING

5 1 Introduction
5 2 Types of Reports
5 3 Timelines
5 4 Distribution

ANNEX A: GLOSSARY
ANNEX B: MMSOP WG CAPABILITY MATRIX
ANNEX C: MHC WG SKILL-SET PER MODULE
ANNEX D: EVALUATION TOOL, QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EACH CAPABILITY / MODULE
ANNEX E: REPORT FORMAT

1-2

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

References:
A MC 326/2 NATO Principles and Policies of Operational Medical Support
B MC 458/1 The NATO Education, Training, Exercise and Evaluation Policy
C AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions
D AJP 4.10(A) Allied Joint Medical Support Doctrine
E AMedP-13 NATO Glossary of Medical Terms and Definitions
F ACT Directive 75-2 Medical Joint Functional Area Training Guide
G MC-551 Medical Support Concept for NATO Response Force Operations
H ATrainP-1 Education and Training for Peace Support Operations
I AAP-31(A) NATO Glossary of Communication and Information systems terms
and definitions

1-3

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1-1 Background

a. General. Medical support to NATO forces must meet standards acceptable to

all participating nations, as opposed to national support to national contingents,
which requires purely national acceptance. Even in crisis or conflict situations, the
aim is to provide an acceptable standard of medical care to achieve outcomes of
treatment equating to best medical practice. NATO military operations are conducted
as an international effort. This allows more nations to participate and use national
medical assets more efficiently. However, international medical cooperation poses
challenges due to differences between nations medical standards and due to legal
constraints. The aim of evaluation in the military field is the official recognition that a
staff, unit or force component meets defined standards and criteria, and is therefore
capable of performing the assigned mission.

b. Multinational Medical Support. The medical standards and criteria must be

clear to all the interested parties: The Lead Nation (LN), NATO Commander and
Troop Contributing Nations (TCN). The LN and each TCN are therefore responsible
for the quality of medical care according to the agreed standards. In order to ensure
transparency and accountability, the NATO Commander will order an evaluation to
identify any risks to the medical facility not meeting the agreed standards, identify
how such risks can be mitigated before or during deployment. After the process of
evaluation, all the involved parties will be able to form a view on the probability that
the medical unit can meet the agreed standards. References refer to a capability-
based approach. Using this approach the MEM does not focus on professions, but
on requirements to be met by certain capabilities. Medical support capabilities will be
tailored to the mission to be supported. Hence the capability based approach needs
to be enhanced to a modular system of medical support capabilities. In addition to
this, best medical practice is to be achieved by LN and TCN.

c. The multinational medical evaluation procedure. The responsibility for the

health of the troops is shared among the NATO Commander and the nations. Due to
financial, technical and medical specialist shortages across the NATO nations,
multinational support options have become a reality. Many nations prefer to

1-4

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

contribute modules or individuals to a multinational medical capability. In most cases Gelscht: <sp>
a LN will integrate these modules into a multinational medical force. The evaluation
procedure has to confirm the quality of care delivered by integrated medical forces,
but also to reveal shortfalls in order to provide the Commander with a risk
assessment concerning medical support to his troops. The evaluation prior to
deployment will be performed by a multinational evaluation team (further described
in Chapter 4). Upon Transfer of Authority (TOA) the Commander can validate the
quality of care of the medical forces. An overview of this procedure is depicted in Fig.
1. The delineated procedure allows the evaluation of medical capabilities that will be
deployed either as part of a Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) or under command
and control of a Deployable Joint Task Force (DJTF) in a NATO Response Force
(NRF) operation. In both cases the NATO Commander at the strategic level will set
the requirements for supporting medical capabilities within the Combined Joint
Statement of Requirements (CJSOR). Therefore the evaluation procedure focuses
on the performance of medical forces in comparison to the requirements.

Gelscht:

Evaluation Process

26-8-2009
Handover Medical Support Requirement (Part of CJSOR)

Formation / Unit
TOA
MN EVAL TEAM
Module X
X
Module integrate
JFC / JC
Module X

generate
and certify CJTF / DJTF
Module W

Module W Force Integration

Nation X
generate
Nation Y Module X

Module Z
generate Module W
and certify Module Z

Module Z
Module Y
integrate
Lessons Learned
Module
Module YY Module Y

NAT EVALUATION MN EVALUATION Certification

Fig. 1 - NATO Medical Evaluation Procedure

1-5

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

1-2 Aim

The aim of the NATO Medical Evaluation Manual (NATO MEM) is to facilitate and
provide the framework for nations to certify their own medical capabilities and also
for the medical evaluation of multinational medical modules and units, when formed
to support NATO operations. Medical certification in the military field is the official
recognition that a staff, module, unit or force component can provide the defined
capability agreed by nations or, if it cannot, documents the residual risk and required
mitigation.

1-3 Scope

a. Usage. The NATO MEM should be utilised as the tool to provide the structure
for the evaluation of multinational medical capabilities. While this is the primary
focus, the evaluation of modules and individual personnel clearly needs a common
basis as well. Therefore the framework for the evaluation and certification that takes
place under national responsibilities has also been included. The NATO MEM can be
applied to multinational medical forces either prior to deployment or, for validation
purposes, to medical capabilities as part of a deployed multinational force. The tool
will serve as a reference for common standards, procedures, and terminology.
Hence it supports the overarching goal of achieving best medical practice. The
NATO MEM is designed as a stand-alone document, which includes basic
supporting references. The structure of the NATO MEM allows the user to select
only the relevant sections (key questionnaires, medical skill sets) to meet the
requirements of the mission related medical capability (Module, Unit). It should be
noted that the process of medical governance of the Multinational Medical Unit
(MMU) remains the responsibility of the LN and should be in accordance with
emerging NATO governance policy.

b. Application. The NATO MEM has been developed as a toolbox for evaluating
authorities. It can be applied either as a whole or for the evaluation and certification
of single capabilities. Nations are encouraged to use the skill sets provided within
Annex B for the evaluation and certification of individuals and modules. In this way
the reference to common standards prior to the handover of solely national modules
to a multinational medical force will be ensured. The NATO MEM is primarily aimed
at those personnel involved in evaluating MMU assigned to a NATO Command.
However, anyone involved with medical education, training and evaluation may find
the NATO MEM a useful reference.

1-6

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

c. Principles. The NATO MEM reinforces the principles that effective

multinational medical support can only be achieved through effective training. It
builds upon the responsibility of individual medical knowledge and skills based on
agreed standards enabling the individual to be part of a medical capability working in
a national or multinational medical environment (Module or Unit).

d. Lessons Learned Process. As an evaluation tool, the NATO MEM must remain
current and applicable to the forces to be evaluated. This means that the tool will be
dynamic in nature and content and that the evaluation issues will be contextual with
circumstances, operational experiences and doctrinal developments. The method
for achieving effective currency with changes in medical practice within NATO, is the
Lessons Learned process. The evaluation of operational developments by the Joint
Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC) serves as the formal route for
ensuring NATO gains maximum advantage from the recorded events of note. It is
therefore imperative that the NATO MEM review process incorporates a formal
methodology for incorporating Lessons Learned into the text of the NATO MEM.

1-4 Evaluation

a. Levels. By using the NATO MEM, evaluation of multinational medical forces

takes place at four different levels (individual, module, unit, medical support system).
Definitions of these levels are provided in Chapter 2 - 2.

b. Multinational Evaluation Team (MET). The evaluation of units and the medical
support system requires the input from a range of Subject Matter Experts (SME).
Consequently the LN prior to deployment and the Commander after TOA will set up
a team of SMEs in order to conduct the evaluation. It will be composed of SMEs from
the NATO Command Structure, LN and TCNs. Depending on the purpose of the
evaluation, the parties represented in the team will take part either as members who
actually conduct the evaluation or as observers who do not contribute to the
generation of the evaluation results.

d. Evaluation procedure. The evaluation procedure is based on a system of key

questions and supporting questions. Some of the supporting questions address
mission essential issues. All types of questions are either related to personnel,
equipment or procedures. Each module will be evaluated by posing a key question
aiming at the overall capability of that module. Supporting questions focus at sub-
capabilities and performances which altogether describe the capability. The
questions should be answered in such a way that the risk can be fully articulated and
recommendations can be made for mitigating capability gaps. The same systematic
1-7

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

approach to questions can also be used for the evaluation of medical units and the
medical system as a whole. Following the evaluation a report will be raised
summarizing findings. This will take the form of a risk assessment that will describe
the capability in terms of fully capable/no risks identified, capable/minor risks
identified or capable with limitations/major risks identified1 (details in Chapter 5).
The evaluator/evaluation team may use any suitable description system they choose
(i. e. colour code/traffic light system) in order to achieve the summarized findings.

1
This description will regularly not occur if national preparation has successfully followed the self
assessment process depicted in chapter 3 of this manual.

1-8

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

CHAPTER 2

DEFINITIONS
2-1 General definitions:

As detailed in reference B, in the context of military forces, the hierarchical

relationship in logical sequence is: assessment, analysis, evaluation, validation and
certification.

Analysis: The study of a whole by examining its parts and their interactions.

Assessment: The process of estimating the capabilities and performance of

organizations, individuals, materiel or systems.

Evaluation: The structured process of examining activities, capabilities and

performance against defined standards of criteria.

Validation: The confirmation of the capabilities and performance of organizations,

individuals, materiel or systems and the degree to which they meet defined
standards or criteria, through the provision of objective evidence.

Certification: The process of officially recognizing that organizations, individuals,

materiel or systems meet defined standards or criteria and the areas in which these
standards are met, as well as the degree to which they are met.

Capability: The ability of an item to meet a service demand of given quantitative

characteristics under given internal conditions (Ref F The military medical capability
describes the functions offered as part of a medical unit).

Military Medical Module: A separable medical component, interchangeable with

others, for assembly into medical units of different size, complexity, or function.

Unit: A military element whose structure is prescribed by a competent military

authority.

Military Medical Unit: A military medical element whose structure is prescribed by a

competent military authority.

1-9

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

2-2 Evaluation levels:

The evaluation of multinational medical forces takes place at four different levels:

Level I:

The individual level of evaluation deals with the representation of skill-sets among
medical personnel. It is a national responsibility prior to handover to a multinational
medical force.

Level II:

The module level of evaluation deals with the evaluation of modules as a contribution
to a multinational medical force. As for Level I evaluation, it is a national
responsibility.

Level III:

The unit level of evaluation deals with the evaluation of MMUs. The evaluation will be
performed by a MET under the responsibility of the LN.

Level IV:

The medical support system as a whole may be evaluated and validated during a
combined joint exercise under the responsibility of the Joint Force Commander or
upon receipt of the Level III evaluation reports from the deploying MMUs.

2-3 Evaluation outcome:

Fully capable/no risks identified:

The combination of personnel, equipment and procedures deliver the required

capabilities. No risks could be identified.

Capable/minor risks identified:

The combination of personnel, equipment and procedures deliver the required

capabilities in general. Recognized risks are not mission essential. They are likely to
be minor in nature or unlikely to affect capability in most circumstances. Capability
gaps should be resolved.

1 - 10

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

Capable with limitations/major risks identified:

The combination of personnel, equipment and procedures deliver the required

capabilities with limitations. Recognized risks are mission essential. They are likely
to be major in nature and likely to affect capability in most circumstances. Capability
gaps must be resolved prior to deployment, or the receiving Commander must certify
that he can address the residual risk by using other in-theatre resources.

1 - 11

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

CHAPTER 3

APPLICATION OF THE TOOL

3 1 INTRODUCTION

a. The aim of the NATO MEM is to provide the structure for the evaluation of
multinational medical capabilities. While this is the primary focus, the evaluation of
modules, medical units, the medical system as a whole and individual medical
personnel requires a common standard. Therefore the framework for the evaluation
that takes place under national responsibilities has also been included.

b. The NATO MEM can be applied for the evaluation and certification of
multinational medical forces prior to deployment or for the evaluation and validation
during deployment. It has been specifically designed to allow interpretation and
usage over all levels of medical capabilities (medical modules, military medical units,
the medical system as a whole) and the evaluation of individual personnel. The
NATO MEM has been developed as a TOOLBOX for evaluating capabilities.

c. The tool should NOT be viewed as a checklist. It should be utilized in

conjunction with Annex B which describes the capabilities of medical modules in full
detail. This chapter details the recommended usage of the tool but does not aim to
be prescriptive; usage of the manual should be determined by the LN in conjunction
with the MET.

3 2 RESPONSIBILITIES

The LN and all TCN have a national responsibility to prepare their contingents for
deployment to meet the medical care capabilities required for the specific mission.
Annex C provides detailed information about the skill sets required to meet the
stated module capabilities.
The LN and each TCN have shared responsibility for the quality of medical care
according to the agreed standards and in accordance with emerging NATO
governance policy.

1 - 12

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

3 3 EVALUATION / VALIDATION / CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY

The LN is authorised to asses and evaluate the MMU prior to deployment. To assist
this process, the NATO MEM has been developed to be used as a guide for
evaluating each MMU in preparation for validation and certification to take place.
Based on the recommendations of the evaluation team, the LN will provide the
Commander with a risk assessment regarding the MMU to validate the units against
operational requirements. Certification will be the responsibility of either of the lead
Joint Force Commander (JFC) or Allied Command Operations (ACO). Gelscht:

3 4 EVALUATION PROCESS

a. MMU need a set of agreed standards. These standards must be included in

the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Technical Arrangement (TA) between
the participating nations. Another possibility is to use a set of agreed NATO
standards e.g. this NATO MEM including the skill set matrix to determine the
individual skills required. National procedures and training policies require time to
train a MMU. In these cases certification should be a two-step approach. The first
step is national certification of the personnel or elements that will form part of the
MMU. The second step is the integration and certification of national elements within
the MMU. Within this step it must be assured that modules which are providing
capabilities have no overlap with other provided modules to the MMU.

b. National Level. The evaluation process starts at national level. Individual

nations are responsible for the training of their own medical personnel and modules
prior to transfer to a LN. Besides training, TCN are also responsible for the national
evaluation and certification at level 1 (individuals) and at level 2 (module). The main
focus of this evaluation and certification is the individual skill of each medical
professional. Nations are encouraged to use this NATO MEM for their national
evaluation and certification. Nations who are unable to contribute a complete module
can also contribute individual medical personnel. These personnel will be trained,
evaluated and certified by the nation responsible for the provision of the complete
module. This certification will mainly focus on level 2.

c. LN Level. On an agreed date, the LN will receive the contributions of all TCN
and commence the integration of the MMU. After the integration, a period of training
will start. This training is focussed on level 3 (unit). After the training period the unit
will be evaluated by a multinational evaluation team using the NATO MEM. All TCN
are invited to contribute to the evaluation team. The outcome of the evaluation will be
detailed in an evaluation report. This report will assess the MMU and will identify the
capability deficiencies to be resolved prior to or during deployment.
1 - 13

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

d. Formation Level. At formation level (level 4 medical support system) the

MMUs will be integrated into the NATO force. The Force Commander will use the
final evaluation report (FER) for level 4 validation.

e. JFC/ACO Level. The final certification will be at JFC/ACO level.

3 5 APPLICATION OF THE NATO MEM

a. Following the decision to commence a NATO operation, ACO med staff will
clearly articulate the medical capability requirements. A LN will be identified and will
be tasked with identifying and coordinating the required medical modules from
TCNs. In tandem, a Medical Evaluation Team (MET) will be formed (details of
composition and training are contained in Chapter 4). Whilst nations are generating
and evaluating the required medical modules, the MET will adapt to the NATO MEM
to meet the specific requirements.

b. When the LN has integrated the various modules to form the MMU the MET
will forward the tailored evaluation manual for use as a self assessment tool. Once
complete this self assessment will be returned to the team for analysis and review
including the outline organization, equipment table, SOPs and job descriptions.
When this process is complete a formal evaluation visit will be arranged. In
preparation for this visit the MET will carefully consider the capabilities to be
evaluated. They will rely heavily on (Annex B) which describes in detail the
capabilities of each medical module. It should be noted that the physical evaluation
should be conducted during a pre-deployment exercise; however, if this is not
practicable, it may be undertaken via an appropriate staff check although this will
significantly affect the degree of assurance that can be provided.

1 - 14

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

c. The evaluation of a MMU is summarized at Fig. 2.

NATO Supported
Operation

MET formed under Med capability LN and TCNs

command of LN requirements set by identify modules and
ACO evaluate

MET adapt the Modules integrated

NATO MEM to meet under LN Command
capability
requirements

Formation of MMU

Self assessment
utilizing NATO MEM
returned to MET

MET review self

assessment

Evaluation of MMU

Report forwarded to
ACO for onward
transmission to
NATO Commander

Fig 2 - Evaluation of a MMU Formatiert: Links

1 - 15

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

CHAPTER 4

EVALUATION TEAM
4 1 Introduction

In order to conduct the evaluation the LN will set up a MET prior to deployment. After
TOA the Commander may establish a MET for further evaluation. The MET will be
formed by appropriately qualified SMEs from the NATO Command Structure (NCS),
LN and TCNs. The composition of the multinational evaluation team is shown in
Table 1. The MET will use the NATO MEM for evaluating capabilities (modules,
MMUs or a medical system as a whole). Nations are encouraged to use the NATO
MEM for evaluating individuals and medical modules.

4 2 Responsibilities

The following details the evaluation responsibilities at each Level:

Levels I and II (individuals and medical modules) TCNs

Level III (unit) LNs
Level IV (medical support system) Formation Commander

4 3 Composition

a. As a guide, MET size should be no less than 6 evaluators. The MET Leader
may additionally appoint administrative support.

b. Teams will be under the direction of the LN appointed MET Leader. Ideally,
he/she should be of a higher or at least the same rank as the commander of the
evaluated unit.

c. The recommended composition of the MET is as follows:

LN TCN ACO ACT JFC CJTF/DJTF

Medical Medical Medical Cdr

Pre- Lead X
deployment
Member X X X
evaluation
(Level III) Observer X X

1 - 16

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

Lead X
Evaluation
Member X X
(Level IV)
Observer X X

Table 1: Composition of a MET.

d. The tables show the key representative bodies that share responsibility for
the delivery of effective medical capability and ideally the teams should consist of
representatives from all areas. However, in consideration of the competing
pressures on time and resources, this aspiration may not always be achievable.
Therefore, as a minimum, the METs should comprise the LN and TCN
representatives for the Level III and Level IV (deployed) evaluation.

4 4 Team Roles

a. The MET has the clear role during pre-deployment, to provide:

1) The medical capability requirements.

2) Evaluation of overall capability.

3) Identification of capability deficiencies and assessment of impact

(degree of risk).

4) Advice and direction to achieve compliance (risk mitigation).

b. This process is the first stage of assessment and is deliberately low-key with
the emphasis on internal appreciation of the NATO values. The intent is to explore
where there are differences or lack of understanding and to obtain guidance and
advice, aimed at progressing the unit towards validation. This is seen as a helpful
and confidence-building process between multinational contributors, where shared
appreciation and cooperation can develop the proposed MTF or medical capability.

c. The MET at the Level IV evaluation, is responsible for building upon the Level
III evaluation phase by transferring the unit confidence in capability to the operational
commander that will hold responsibility for the unit. The MET at this stage holds the
responsibility to provide:

1) Reiteration of the medical capability requirements.

2) Resolution of capability deficiencies.

1 - 17

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

3) Assessment reporting of medical capabilities for the Commanders

validation.

4 5 Evaluators Roles

a. Lead. The lead role will be drawn from the LN and is to provide the focus for
initiation of the pre-evaluation process. This role includes coordinating with
contributing nations on the evaluation and establishing the support of ACO/JFC
medical staff for completion. The lead role will also act as the focus for informing
ACT medical and the Commander of the evaluation.

b. Members. The members of the MET will be drawn from the TCNs and NCS.
They will be appropriately qualified individuals who will be responsible for conducting
the evaluation under the direction of the Lead Evaluator and iaw the NATO MEM.

c. Observers. The participation of observers from different NCS bodies should

be encouraged in order to ensure transparity and compare methods and procedures
within the overall framework of the medical capability evaluation. The attendance of
observers depends on the approval of the LN.

4 6 Evaluator Qualifications

a. All members of the MET must be appropriately qualified. This requirement

ensures that the capability will be examined by personnel who hold an appreciation
of the medical values that would apply to the unit. The NATO MEM and the
evaluation process should be understood in detail by all national military medical
staff and in outline by military commanders

b. Potential evaluation team members (SME) are to undertake and successfully

complete NATO MEM implementation training, aimed at ensuring validity, credibility
and consistency in application of the NATO MEM tool. As a caveat, it is accepted
that this requirement is neither valid nor practical for the CJTF/DJTF Commander.
The nature of this implementation training and the source of delivery are beyond the
scope of this document2.

4-7 Task

The evaluation of the unit will take place at the end or after the mission orientated
training. The effectiveness aspect of the performance is reflected in a key question
for the execution of an operational evaluation. This key question can be explored
further by asking supporting questions in evaluation guidance to each key question.
2
This task could be given to the NATO Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine (MILMED COE)

1 - 18

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

These supporting questions are divided into three areas, personnel, material and
procedures. Each question must be answered with supporting documentary
evidence or observational reports where appropriate. On completion of the
evaluation the Lead Evaluator will be responsible for the formal reporting (details in
Chapter 5).

1 - 19

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

CHAPTER 5

REPORTING

5 1 Introduction

The aim of reporting is to provide the commander with a risk assessment and
recommendations.

a. The reporting described in this chapter is designed for level III and IV Medical
Evaluation. It may also serve as template for level I and II.

b. The reporting is to be based on the outcome of key questions, mission

essential questions and supporting questions. All types of questions are either
related to personnel, equipment or procedures.

The reporting is to be based on the outcome of key questions and supporting

questions, some of them addressing mission essential issues. All types of questions
are either related to personnel, equipment or procedures.

The results should be collectively evaluated by the MET leader and members using
all available evaluation data to develop an (as objective as possible) evaluation of
the units overall capability to accomplish the task. The MET will identify to the MMU
commander any deficiencies or risk to providing the required capability and allow the
MMU commander the opportunity to address, or indicate how he will address any
deficiencies. The MET will then provide a written evaluation on the defined capability
of the MMU. It is the responsibility of the member representatives of the team to
formulate and complete the evaluation report, and the responsibility of the LN to
approve the report and certify the MMU.

5 2 Types of reports

MET leader and members will report the results of the evaluation in two different
reports.

1 - 20

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

a. First Impression Report (FIR)The FIR has to be written on site and serves as Gelscht:
immediate feedback for the complete evaluated MMU. It should comprise of
observations, major findings, recommendations (Reporting format at annex D).

The MMU commander has the opportunity to respond to the MET within a week how
he will address any deficiencies / shortfalls or how he will mitigate the identified risks.
This comment can be inserted in the FER or even appended to it.

b. Final Evaluation Report (FER)

The FER has to be finished and transmitted to ACO not later then four weeks after
finishing the evaluation. It serves as feedback to ACO and to the JTFSC and should
comprise of executive summary, introduction, pre-evaluation information, Gelscht:
assumptions, methodology, findings, conclusion, recommendations (Reporting
format at annex D).

5 3 Timelines

Timelines have to be met in preparation, execution, self assessment and reporting of

the level III and IV - Medical evaluation.

a. Preparation

1. Nomination of the MET Leader: not later than 4 months prior to the
evaluation.

2. Nomination of the MET members (SMEs): not later than 3 months prior to
the evaluation.

3. Notification of evaluation to the CJTF/DJTF Commander of the MMU: not

later than 3 month prior to the evaluation.

4. Team briefing for the MET: not later than 2 month prior to the evaluation.

c. Self-assessment

1. Delivery of the Self assessment utilizing NATO MEM returned from the MMU
to MET: not later than 1 month prior to the evaluation by the MET

2. MET review of the self assessment: finished not later than 2 weeks prior to
the evaluation

1 - 21

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD
 Version 2.3 (10 August 2009)

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD

d. Execution

1. Time frame has to be agreed between the MET leader and the CJTF/DJTF
Commander of the MMU 4 weeks prior to the evaluation.

e. Reporting

1. Ad hoc feedback during the evaluation is to be encouraged.

2. Delivery of the FIR: on site at the end of the evaluation.

3. Delivery of the draft FER: after two weeks to the Commander of the MMU for
comments using silence procedure of one week.

4. Final delivery of the final FER: not later than four weeks after finishing the
evaluation.

5 4 Distribution

a. The FIR has to be delivered on site to the Commander of the MMU.

b. The FER has to be formally forwarded to ACO for onward transmission to the Formatiert: Einzug: Links:
CJTF/DJTF Commander, a copy must be sent to the Commander of the MMU 0,95 cm

directly.

1 - 22

NATO UNCLASSIFIED
Releasable to EU/PfP/MD