Skip to content

BMJ Military Health publication dossier

Working submission

  • Journal: BMJ Military Health
  • Article type: Analysis
  • Working title: Clinical safety at the seams: how UK Defence medical information systems may cause harm during digital transition
  • Evidence cut-off: 15 July 2026
  • Status: draft complete — submission blocked pending human review, evidence refresh and clearance

Read the canonical manuscript.

The Word submission draft is stored at artifacts/bmj-military-health/UK_Defence_digital_clinical_safety_BMJ_Military_Health.docx. The Markdown manuscript is the maintainable project copy; the Word file is rebuilt from it for submission.

Publication dossier

  • Evidence and argument map — maps every manuscript reference and major proposition to stable source records, confidence within scope and retained limitations.
  • Defence and DMICP evidence baseline — separates public evidence, historical material, author-supplied operational context, analytical hypotheses and unknowns.
  • Regulation 28 case crosswalk — traces the seven illustrative PFD cases into Defence assurance questions without implying transferability.
  • Methods and limitations — records the Analysis design, source-selection logic, causal boundaries, AI use and update protocol.
  • Submission readiness — distinguishes completed technical preparation from blocking human approvals, declarations, source refresh and clearance.

The dossier is a reader-facing derivative of the canonical source, claim, requirement and test registers. It does not replace them and does not publish raw sibling-project audit routes.

Why this is an Analysis

The article develops an evidence-supported argument from peer-reviewed literature, official Defence and NHS publications, bounded CQC observations and illustrative Prevention of Future Deaths reports. It does not present the project's selected Regulation 28 corpus or coding counts as new results. Reporting that corpus as an original study would require a completed reproducible search, independent screening and coding, explicit causal-status classification and the other governance expected of original research.

The draft has therefore been kept within the current Analysis limits recorded from the journal guidance: 2,000 main-text words, a 250-word unstructured abstract, no more than six combined tables and figures, and no more than 30 references. Limits must be rechecked in the submission system immediately before submission (SRC-159).

Evidence boundary

The article's central proposition is prospective: digital harm is most likely at seams between information, workflow and responsibility. Civilian coronial reports and Defence inspection evidence define credible hazard scenarios; they do not prove that DMICP has the same defect, caused a death, is unsafe or fails DCB0129/DCB0160. DMICP's current clinical-safety regime and artefacts remain unknown, not absent or non-conformant.

Human completion before submission

  1. Confirm the author list, affiliations, corresponding author, ORCID identifiers, contributions and human guarantor.
  2. Obtain the required institutional and MOD publication/security clearance.
  3. Confirm funding, competing interests, ethics and patient-consent statements.
  4. Have every human author verify every factual claim and reference, revise the argument, approve the final text and accept accountability.
  5. Retain the transparent AI-use declaration required by BMJ policy (SRC-161).
  6. Re-run the literature and programme-status search to the submission date and update time-sensitive references.