Archive \ Volume.16 2025 Issue 2

Keeping the Patient Visible when Pharmacy Services Become Data-Driven

, ,
  1. Department of Patient-Centered Pharmacy Informatics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco.
  2. Department of Data-Driven Care and Patient Visibility, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Casablanca, Casablanca, Morocco.

Abstract

Data-driven pharmacy services can combine electronic medication records, patient-generated information, clinical decision support, and artificial intelligence to improve the organization and interpretation of medication-related data. However, a technically comprehensive record may still obscure the person whose treatment is being considered. Important explanations, preferences, practical capabilities, and social constraints may be absent, outdated, poorly interpreted, or disconnected from the eventual decision. This article develops an original Patient-Visibility Framework for examining whether the patient remains meaningfully represented when pharmacy services become data-driven. Patient visibility is proposed as a decision property arising when relevant context is captured with provenance, interpreted for the current medication task, open to patient correction, discussed when uncertainty or discordance exists, connected transparently to professional action, and updated over time. The framework organizes visibility through four interacting layers: narrative, preference, capability, and social context. These layers enter a sociotechnical pathway comprising context capture, interpretation, pharmacist–patient dialogue, medication action, follow-up, and accountability. Proposed failure modes include patient–record substitution, narrative flattening, preference freezing, capability misclassification, context staleness, unequal missingness, workflow bypass, and responsibility diffusion. Evaluation therefore requires more than model performance. Construct validity, representational fidelity, workflow feasibility, medication-safety consequences, patient experience, equity, governance, and temporal validity must be examined separately. The framework is a conceptual and evaluative contribution rather than a validated instrument, clinical protocol, or deployment standard. Its categories, relationships, transition gates, and proposed indicators require empirical testing across pharmacy tasks, populations, technologies, and care settings.


Downloads: 29
Views: 122

How to cite:
Vancouver
Hariri Y, Nasser H, Zahra F. Keeping the Patient Visible when Pharmacy Services Become Data-Driven. Arch Pharm Pract. 2025;16(2):53-61. https://doi.org/10.51847/KDzAs5zVzk
APA
Hariri, Y., Nasser, H., & Zahra, F. (2025). Keeping the Patient Visible when Pharmacy Services Become Data-Driven. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 16(2), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.51847/KDzAs5zVzk

Download Citation
References
  1. 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
  2. Zulman DM, Haverfield MC, Shaw JG, Brown-Johnson CG, Schwartz R, Tierney AA, et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.19003
  3. Rathert C, Mittler JN, Banerjee S, McDaniel J. Patient-centered communication in the era of electronic health records: What does the evidence say? Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(1):50-64. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.031
  4. Shortliffe EH, Sepúlveda MJ. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2018;320(21):2199-200. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.17163
  5. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2018;21(2):429-40. doi:10.1111/hex.12640
  6. Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, Aarts J, Barr PJ, Berger Z, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: Multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891
  7. Reading MJ, Merrill JA. Converging and diverging needs between patients and providers who are collecting and using patient-generated health data: An integrative review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(6):759-71. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy006
  8. Heckemann B, Chaaya M, Jakobsson Ung E, Olsson DS, Jakobsson S. Finding the person in electronic health records: A mixed-methods analysis of person-centered content and language. Health Commun. 2022;37(4):418-24. doi:10.1080/10410236.2020.1846275
  9. Carayon P, Wooldridge A, Hoonakker P, Hundt AS, Kelly MM. SEIPS 3.0: Human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety. Appl Ergon. 2020;84:103033. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033
  10. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, et al. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11). doi:10.2196/jmir.8775
  11. 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
  12. Cutillo CM, Sharma KR, Foschini L, Kundu S, Mackintosh M, Mandl KD, et al. Machine intelligence in healthcare—perspectives on trustworthiness, explainability, usability, and transparency. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:47. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0254-2
  13. Adler-Milstein J, Nong P. Early experiences with patient generated health data: Health system and patient perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(10):952-9. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz045
  14. Longoni C, Bonezzi A, Morewedge CK. Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. J Consum Res. 2019;46(4):629-50. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz013
  15. van Deursen AJAM, van Dijk JAGM. The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media Soc. 2019;21(2):354-75. doi:10.1177/1461444818797082
  16. Cantor MN, Thorpe L. Integrating data on social determinants of health into electronic health records. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(4):585-90. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1252
  17. Marien S, Krug B, Spinewine A. Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(1):227-40. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocw068
  18. Ancker JS, Edwards A, Nosal S, Hauser D, Mauer E, Kaushal R. 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
  19. Tolley C, Seymour H, Watson N, Nazar H, Heed J, Belshaw D. Barriers and opportunities for the use of digital tools in medicines optimization across the interfaces of care: Stakeholder interviews in the United Kingdom. JMIR Med Inform. 2023;11. doi:10.2196/42458
  20. Lester C, Rowell B, Zheng Y, Co Z, Marshall V, Kim JY, et al. Effect of uncertainty-aware AI models on pharmacists’ reaction time and decision-making in a web-based mock medication verification task: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Med Inform. 2025;13. doi:10.2196/64902
  21. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447-53. doi:10.1126/science.aax2342
  22. Richardson S, Lawrence K, Schoenthaler AM, Mann D. A framework for digital health equity. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5:119. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00663-0
  23. Hassan N, Slight R, Bimpong K, Bates DW, Weiand D, Vellinga A, et al. Systematic review to understand users perspectives on AI-enabled decision aids to inform shared decision making. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7:332. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01326-y
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J, Goldberg H, Diaz-Martinez JP, Tomlinson G, et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2020;370. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3216
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Finlayson SG, Subbaswamy A, Singh K, Bowers J, Kupke A, Zittrain J, et al. The clinician and dataset shift in artificial intelligence. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(3):283-6. doi:10.1056/NEJMc2104626

 

 

 


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