The improvements in Afghanistan have in the main been driven by money. . For example every casualty is met by a CT scanner and consultant radiologist. The ability to evacuate to the UK etc etc. And the money to train every member of the medical ream for weeks before deployment whereas in the UK managers wont stop clinical work for training.
The prehospital team has been improved by including a doctor, but this really just follows the Sheffield study which showed the only benefit they could demonstrate from HEMS was the occasional medical intervention in the field if the helicopter carried a doctor.
The main difference IMHO is that in the theatre of war you get sadly recurrent major trauma and in most cases an embedded first responder who can task HEMS. In civilian scenarios many patients have quite minor injuries and there is a political requirement to decide the response at notification with minimal information, so most HEMS missions do not improve outcome
This is as mentioned off thread as the issue is whether we need massive complex machines. There is no evidence they will improve patient outcome.