English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article forms part of a series that will explore the effect that Role 2 (R2) medical treatment facilities (MTFs) had on casualty care during the military campaign in Afghanistan and how we should interpret this to inform the capabilities in, and training for future R2 MTFs. Key aspects of doctrine which influence the effectiveness of R2 MTFs include timelines to care, patient movement capabilities, and MTF capabilities. The focus of this analysis was to review allied doctrine from the United States, United Kingdom, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to identify similarities and differences regarding employment of R2 related medical assets in the Afghan Theater, specifically for trauma care. Several discrepancies in medical doctrine persist among allied forces. Timelines to definitive care vary among nations. Allied nations should have clear taxonomy that clearly defines MTF capabilities within the combat casualty care system. The R2 surgical capability discrepancy between United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization doctrine should be reconciled. Medical evacuation capabilities on the battlefield would be improved with a taxonomy that reflected the level of capability. Such changes may improve interoperability in a dynamic military landscape.

The Afghan Theater: A Review of Military Medical Doctrine From 2008 to 2014