In patient transport, information does not always speak the same language. It underpins every decision across the chain – from initial triage and quoting through to mobilisation and in-flight care – yet there is still no shared understanding of what it should contain, how it should be structured, or when it is complete enough to act upon.

Most stakeholders now recognise that inconsistent or incomplete information creates problems for everyone – delays, inaccurate pricing, operational changes, and unnecessary clinical risk

For an industry built on moving critically ill patients safely and efficiently across borders, that lack of consistency creates a surprising amount of friction. Quotes are revised, transport plans are adjusted, medical teams are upgraded, and decisions are revisited as new information emerges. While most stakeholders agree the problem exists, reaching consensus on how to solve it remains considerably more difficult.

A problem decades in the making

According to Claudia Schmiedhuber, Founder and CEO of the Global Assistance & Medical Transport Institute (GAMTI), the industry’s information challenges are largely a consequence of its evolution. 

“The industry has grown very organically over the years,” she explained. “Different providers, assistance companies, insurers, and brokers all developed their own ways of collecting information based on what worked for them operationally. What an insurer wants to know may not be the same as what a medical crew or an air ambulance operator considers critical.”

That organic growth has produced a fragmented ecosystem. As patient transport grows increasingly global and clinically complex, those inconsistencies are becoming harder to ignore.

“Most stakeholders now recognise that inconsistent or incomplete information creates problems for everyone – delays, inaccurate pricing, operational changes, and unnecessary clinical risk,” Schmiedhuber said.

For those managing cases every day, the consequences are far from theoretical.

“Inconsistent or incomplete medical information is a daily operational reality in air ambulance coordination,” observed Dr Ludovic Gros, Global Medical Director at Allianz Partners.

When information is unclear or unreliable, Allianz frequently errs on the side of caution, deploying more resources than may ultimately prove necessary.

“In practice, this often means upgrading the transport solution beyond the initially estimated needs,” he explained, “for example, by sending a higher-level medical team, additional equipment, or selecting a more capable aircraft configuration to avoid unexpected issues during patient retrieval.”

That approach prioritises patient safety, but it also highlights the hidden cost of uncertainty. Resources may be allocated based on assumptions rather than confirmed requirements, while operational planning becomes increasingly conservative.

At Redion (formerly Europ Assistance), the effects are felt throughout the coordination process. “Incomplete or inconsistent information directly impacts our ability to assess medical risk, quote accurately, and coordinate logistics efficiently,” said Nicolas Torchin, Global Head of Medical Networks and Global Preferred Provider Organisations, and Nadine Tavares, Regional Head of Americas Hub and Global Specialised Medical Networks. “It often leads to re-evaluations, last-minute adjustments, and sometimes delays in patient transport.”

Yet Torchin and Tavares argue that the challenge extends beyond missing information alone. The reality is that multiple stakeholders are involved in every case, each with different priorities, systems, and definitions of what constitutes sufficient information.

“We operate at the intersection of multiple actors – insurers, hospitals, medical providers, and transport operators each with their own systems, practices, and constraints,” they told us. “That’s precisely why a common framework would be so valuable.” 

The same patient, multiple interpretations

The same patient is often described differently throughout the transport chain. A hospital may focus on diagnosis and treatment, an insurer on risk and coverage, and a provider on equipment, mobility, and access constraints. The result is multiple interpretations of information throughout the process. 

Incomplete or inconsistent information directly impacts our ability to assess medical risk, quote accurately, and coordinate logistics efficiently

But not all information gaps are clinical. Some of the most disruptive omissions can be surprisingly logistical.

“Operational friction often comes from practical details that may seem secondary, but are critical in an air ambulance setting – such as the number of travellers, passenger height and weight, and how much luggage is involved,” said Paul-Adrien Maizener, US CEO of Redion (formerly Generali Global Assistance).

“Because cabin space and payload are limited in an air ambulance, those factors can directly affect how a transport is organised,” he continued. “In some cases, that means a companion may need to travel separately, or luggage may need to be shipped home rather than transported on the aircraft. Managing those expectations clearly and early is an important part of delivering a smooth experience during a high-stress moment.”

In markets with limited diagnostic infrastructure or underqualified practitioners, the data we receive is inherently less reliable

Maizener’s comments broaden the debate considerably. The issue is not simply about clinical data capture; it’s about ensuring every stakeholder receives the information necessary to make informed decisions, whether those decisions relate to patient care, aircraft capability, operational logistics, or financial approval.

When geography becomes data quality

While fragmented processes create one layer of complexity, geographical variation introduces another.

“The real challenge is in more difficult environments like low-resource hospitals, fragmented healthcare systems, limited diagnostics, or simply lack of responsiveness,” said Dr Gros.

In these circumstances, the problem is often not the absence of a template, but the absence of reliable source information because local facilities lack diagnostics, specialist expertise, or robust reporting systems.

This is a reality that CONNEX Assistance encounters regularly across the Middle East and Africa. “Information quality directly reflects the capability of local medical facilities,” said Managing Director Lara Helmi. “In markets with limited diagnostic infrastructure or underqualified practitioners, the data we receive is inherently less reliable.”

Rather than attempting to impose uniformity on every environment, CONNEX relies heavily on regional expertise and local networks to validate and contextualise information before transport decisions are made.

“Our deep regional knowledge allows us to contextualise the information received, apply clinical judgement, and make sound transport decisions even when the originating facility’s reporting standards fall short of international benchmarks,” Helmi explained.

This is also where opinions begin to diverge.

While there is broad support for improving information capture, not everyone agrees that a mandatory standard information set is the answer.

Allianz Partners takes a relatively cautious view. Dr Gros argues that in some environments the challenge is not the absence of a template, but the absence of reliable information itself.

“A mandatory standard information set may therefore not solve the core issue and could even create additional bureaucracy or a false sense of security,” he said.

Helmi takes a more optimistic view, arguing that CONNEX already operates with a clearly defined information set and that wider adoption would reduce operational burdens, accelerate mobilisation, and improve outcomes.

Solution one: building a common language

Despite differing views on implementation, there is growing consensus that some form of shared baseline would benefit the sector.

“The right approach is to define a core set of critical data required upfront and then enrich that information progressively,” said Torchin and Tavares.

Rather than attempting to create a comprehensive form covering every possible scenario, many stakeholders favour a more pragmatic approach built around essential safety and operational information. That balance between consistency and flexibility emerged repeatedly.

“I think there is definitely more consensus today than there was a few years ago,” Schmiedhuber highlighted. “Everyone agrees standardisation is beneficial in theory, but aligning processes across multiple organisations, systems, and commercial interests is still a challenge.”

For Schmiedhuber, the solution is not a rigid framework that attempts to eliminate uncertainty altogether. Instead, it is a practical structure that ensures everyone begins with the same core information.

“There should be a small number of mandatory fields that are essential for safety and operational planning, with additional information requested only when clinically or operationally relevant,” she said.

This reflects an important shift in thinking. Rather than viewing uncertainty as a failure, organisations are increasingly exploring ways to standardise how uncertainty is identified, communicated, and managed.

As Dr Gros noted, experienced assistance companies already operate this way in practice, making early decisions based on available information while continuously reassessing risk as cases develop.

Solution two: technology catches up

Technology has become central to the discussion, but most contributors agree that the debate has moved beyond whether digital integration is needed.

“The discussion now is less about if we should move in that direction and more about how quickly organisations can realistically adapt existing systems and workflows,” said Schmiedhuber.

At Redion, digital integration is viewed as essential to improving consistency and reducing manual errors.

“Tools like application programming interfaces (APIs) and structured platforms already help standardise data input, reduce manual errors, and speed up communication,” Torchin and Tavares pointed out.

The company is also investing heavily in AI-enabled tools designed to support data structuring and operational 
decision-making.

“At Redion, the quality and availability of information contribute significantly to the success of our AI-driven operations,” said Maizener. “Each active repatriation case is integrated into our technology-enabled ecosystem, which brings together clinical guidelines, network intelligence, country-specific risks, and air ambulance response, cost, and capability data.”

The goal is not simply to collect more information, but to ensure it can be analysed and acted upon more effectively. Structured digital intake systems, APIs, workflow automation, and AI-supported decision tools are increasingly being viewed as practical ways to reduce duplication and improve visibility across the transport chain. 

However, technology alone will not solve the problem.

Solution three: standardisation beyond the form

Even the most sophisticated platform depends on how people use it.

For Schmiedhuber, this is where many conversations around standardisation become overly focused on systems rather than behaviour.

“Standardisation is not about removing professional judgement,” she said. “It is about giving professionals better information earlier.”

Helmi echoed this view, arguing that internal processes, experienced teams, and disciplined information management remain just as important as technology. Torchin and Tavares similarly emphasised that operational coordination remains a fundamentally human activity.

Schmiedhuber believes education, shared terminology, and practical training will ultimately be just as important as digital infrastructure in determining whether a future standard information set succeeds.

“A standard information set will only work if people understand why the data matters, how to use it, and how it improves patient safety across the entire transport chain,” she said. In other words, standardisation is not just a technical challenge; it is a cultural one.

What success actually looks like

Although views differ on implementation, there is broad agreement on the outcomes they would expect to see from a more standardised approach. Allianz Partners points to improved operational consistency and coordination, while Redion anticipates faster decision-making, fewer communication gaps, and more efficient resource allocation. 

CONNEX expects gains in quoting accuracy and mobilisation speed, particularly in regions where fragmented processes currently create delays. And for Redion, speed would likely be the first measurable benefit.

Ultimately, the vision shared across the industry is one not of complete uniformity, but of greater clarity

“The most immediate benefit would be speed,” said Maizener. “A shared standard would reduce back-and-forth, improve coordination, and help teams move more quickly at the moments when time matters most.”

However, he cautioned against viewing efficiency as the sole objective. “Patient care must remain at the centre of every decision. Standardisation can improve efficiency, but its real value is in supporting faster, clearer coordination without adding complexity for the traveller.”

Ultimately, the vision shared across the industry is one not of complete uniformity, but of greater clarity. Better information at the start of the process should reduce the need for repeated clarification later, enabling stakeholders to focus on delivering safe, timely, and effective patient transport.

The industry may not yet agree on the exact shape of a future standard information set, but there is growing agreement that the status quo is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. As medical transport becomes more international, more data-driven, and more interconnected, the ability to capture and share information consistently is moving from operational aspiration to operational necessity.