Archive \ Volume.16 2025 Issue 2

Artificial Intelligence as a Second Reader for High-Risk Prescriptions rather than a First Decision Maker

, ,
  1. Department of High-Risk Prescription Safety, College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
  2. Department of AI-Assisted Clinical Review, College of Pharmacy, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is increasingly positioned near medication decisions, yet the safest location for algorithmic assistance remains unresolved. Treating AI as the first reader may frame the case before a pharmacist has independently interpreted the prescription, while treating it as a decision maker may blur professional authority, encourage automation bias, and conceal uncertainty. This article proposes an Independent Human–AI Prescription Second-Reader Model for selected high-risk prescriptions. The model begins with a human first read, followed by a separately configured AI review activated through a locally validated risk-trigger gate. The AI may detect, prioritize, challenge, explain, or abstain, but it may not prescribe, authorize, independently release a prescription, or adjudicate unresolved conflict. Human and AI findings are reconciled through six proposed states: concordant clearance, concordant concern, AI-only concern, human-only concern, competing interpretations, and unresolved uncertainty or abstention. Disagreement initiates data verification, contextual recovery, independent professional reassessment, prescriber clarification, and proportionate escalation. The model also incorporates auditability, subgroup assessment, workload monitoring, drift surveillance, version control, and suspension or requalification after material change. Evaluation must address incremental interception of clinically important prescription problems together with false reassurance, misleading challenge, delay, alert burden, inequity, and responsibility diffusion. The contribution is conceptual rather than validated: it organizes independent review, authority boundaries, conflict resolution, and governance into a testable human–AI safety architecture. Its applicability remains conditional on prescription type, data quality, professional capacity, local workflow, external validation, and prospective evaluation of the combined work system.


Downloads: 23
Views: 116

How to cite:
Vancouver
Al-Fahd S, Al-Khalifa N, Al-Turki O. Artificial Intelligence as a Second Reader for High-Risk Prescriptions rather than a First Decision Maker. Arch Pharm Pract. 2025;16(2):35-43. https://doi.org/10.51847/ROT7TCFRhD
APA
Al-Fahd, S., Al-Khalifa, N., & Al-Turki, O. (2025). Artificial Intelligence as a Second Reader for High-Risk Prescriptions rather than a First Decision Maker. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 16(2), 35-43. https://doi.org/10.51847/ROT7TCFRhD

Download Citation
References
  1. Panagioti M, Khan K, Keers RN, Abuzour A, Phipps D, Kontopantelis E, et al. Prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across medical care settings: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;366. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4185
  2. Assiri GA, Shebl NA, Mahmoud MA, Aloudah N, Grant E, Aljadhey H, et al. What is the epidemiology of medication errors, error-related adverse events and risk factors for errors in adults managed in community care contexts? A systematic review of the international literature. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019101
  3. Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:17. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y
  4. Chalasani SH, Syed J, Ramesh M, Patil V, Pramod Kumar TM. Artificial intelligence in the field of pharmacy practice: A literature review. Explor Res Clin Soc Pharm. 2023;12:100346. doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100346
  5. Koyama AK, Maddox CSS, Li L, Bucknall T, Westbrook JI. Effectiveness of double checking to reduce medication administration errors: A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(7):595-603. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009552
  6. Westbrook JI, Li L, Raban MZ, Woods A, Koyama AK, Baysari MT, et al. Associations between double-checking and medication administration errors: A direct observational study of paediatric inpatients. BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(4):320-30. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-011473
  7. Gurwitz JH, Kapoor A, Garber L, Mazor KM, Wagner J, Cutrona SL, et al. Effect of a multifaceted clinical pharmacist intervention on medication safety after hospitalization in persons prescribed high-risk medications: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(5):610-8. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.9285
  8. Kuitunen S, Saksa M, Tuomisto J, Holmström AR. Medication errors related to high-alert medications in a paediatric university hospital - a cross-sectional study analysing error reporting system data. BMC Pediatr. 2023;23(1):548. doi:10.1186/s12887-023-04333-2
  9. Corny J, Rajkumar A, Martin O, Dode X, Lajonchère JP, Billuart O, et al. A machine learning-based clinical decision support system to identify prescriptions with a high risk of medication error. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(11):1688-94. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaa154
  10. Levivien C, Cavagna P, Grah A, Buronfosse A, Courseau R, Bézie Y, et al. Assessment of a hybrid decision support system using machine learning with artificial intelligence to safely rule out prescriptions from medication review in daily practice. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022;44(2):459-65. doi:10.1007/s11096-021-01366-4
  11. Hogue SC, Chen F, Brassard G, Lebel D, Bussières JF, Durand A, et al. Pharmacists’ perceptions of a machine learning model for the identification of atypical medication orders. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(8):1712-8. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab071
  12. Segal G, Segev A, Brom A, Lifshitz Y, Wasserstrum Y, Zimlichman E. Reducing drug prescription errors and adverse drug events by application of a probabilistic, machine-learning based clinical decision support system in an inpatient setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(12):1560-5. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz135
  13. Lyell D, Coiera E. Automation bias and verification complexity: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(2):423-31. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw105
  14. Gaube S, Suresh H, Raue M, Merritt A, Berkowitz SJ, Lermer E, et al. Do as AI say: Susceptibility in deployment of clinical decision-aids. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):31. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9
  15. Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Codella N, Halpern A, et al. Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1229-34. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0
  16. Kiani A, Uyumazturk B, Rajpurkar P, Wang A, Gao R, Jones E, et al. Impact of a deep learning assistant on the histopathologic classification of liver cancer. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:23. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0232-8
  17. Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R; with the HITEC Investigators. Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):36. doi:10.1186/s12911-017-0430-8
  18. Liu S, Kawamoto K, Del Fiol G, Weir C, Miao Y, Rupper R, et al. The potential for leveraging machine learning to filter medication alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(5):891-9. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab292
  19. Lee S, Shin J, Kim HS, Lee MJ, Yoon JM, Lee S, et al. Hybrid method incorporating a rule-based approach and deep learning for prescription error prediction. Drug Saf. 2022;45(1):27-35. doi:10.1007/s40264-021-01123-6
  20. Graafsma J, Murphy RM, van de Garde EMW, Karapinar-Çarkit F, Derijks HJ, Hoge RHL, et al. The use of artificial intelligence to optimize medication alerts generated by clinical decision support systems: A scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024;31(6):1411-22. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae076
  21. Wiens J, Saria S, Sendak M, Ghassemi M, Liu VX, Doshi-Velez F, et al. Do no harm: A roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nat Med. 2019;25(9):1337-40. doi:10.1038/s41591-019-0548-6
  22. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK; SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: The CONSORT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26(9):1364-74. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1034-x
  23. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Denaxas S, et al. Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Nat Med. 2022;28(5):924-33. doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01772-9
  24. Seyyed-Kalantari L, Zhang H, McDermott MBA, Chen IY, Ghassemi M. Underdiagnosis bias of artificial intelligence algorithms applied to chest radiographs in under-served patient populations. Nat Med. 2021;27(12):2176-82. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01595-0
  25. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17(1):195. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2
  26. Amann J, Blasimme A, Vayena E, Frey D, Madai VI; Precise4Q consortium. Explainability for artificial intelligence in healthcare: A multidisciplinary perspective. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2020;20(1):310. doi:10.1186/s12911-020-01332-6
  27. Ghassemi M, Oakden-Rayner L, Beam AL. The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2021;3(11). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00208-9
  28. Cabitza F, Rasoini R, Gensini GF. Unintended consequences of machine learning in medicine. JAMA. 2017;318(6):517-8. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.7797
  29. Finlayson SG, Bowers JD, Ito J, Zittrain JL, Beam AL, Kohane IS. Adversarial attacks on medical machine learning. Science. 2019;363(6433):1287-9. doi:10.1126/science.aaw4399
  30. Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, Riley RD, Beam AL, Van Calster B, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: Updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378

 

 


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.