Archive \ Volume.17 2026 Issue 1

Pharmacy Practice in the Age of Agentic Systems That Can Plan, Act, and Escalate

, , ,
  1. Department of Agentic AI and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.
  2. Department of Autonomous Systems in Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
  3. Department of Escalation and Human Oversight, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence in pharmacy has largely been framed as a source of predictions, alerts, classifications, or generated recommendations. Agentic systems create a different governance problem because they may maintain task state, formulate multistep plans, invoke tools, initiate workflow actions, monitor resulting conditions, and decide whether to revise, stop, or escalate. This article develops a non-empirical governance architecture for situating such capabilities within medication-use work. The proposed Bounded Agentic Pharmacy-Work Theory conceptualizes agentic performance as a relationship among a defined pharmacy-work mandate, authorized context, planning and action functions, permission constraints, consequence monitoring, escalation pathways, and accountable human and organizational control. Four interacting layers are proposed: the pharmacy-work mandate, agentic execution, permission and authority, and human and organizational control. These layers are connected through mandate specification, an action envelope, an authority contract, an escalation contract, and a trace-and-consequence ledger. A plan–act–monitor–escalate cycle is introduced to distinguish generation of a plausible plan from permission to cause a medication-related action. Evaluation must therefore extend beyond model accuracy to plan coherence, tool use, permission adherence, action correctness, reversibility, monitoring sensitivity, escalation performance, human factors, medication-safety consequences, equity, robustness, and local workflow effects. The architecture does not establish that agentic systems improve pharmacy practice or that any proposed permission level is clinically, legally, or regulatorily acceptable. Its original contribution is a testable framework for determining how agentic capability may be bounded, evaluated, supervised, restricted, or withdrawn before it is treated as legitimate pharmacy-work authority.


Downloads: 21
Views: 133

How to cite:
Vancouver
Gonzales M, Santos J, Cruz A, Reyes C. Pharmacy Practice in the Age of Agentic Systems That Can Plan, Act, and Escalate. Arch Pharm Pract. 2026;17(1):39-47. https://doi.org/10.51847/BDjsmWFfzU
APA
Gonzales, M., Santos, J., Cruz, A., & Reyes, C. (2026). Pharmacy Practice in the Age of Agentic Systems That Can Plan, Act, and Escalate. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 17(1), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.51847/BDjsmWFfzU

Download Citation
References
  1. 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
  2. Topol EJ. High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):44-56. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
  3. Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(14):1347-58. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1814259
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Liu F, Niu Y, Zhang Q, Wang K, Dong Z, Wong IN, et al. A foundational architecture for AI agents in healthcare. Cell Rep Med. 2025;6(10):102374. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102374
  7. Collaco BG, Haider SA, Prabha S, Gomez-Cabello CA, Genovese A, Wood NG, et al. The role of agentic artificial intelligence in healthcare: A scoping review. NPJ Digit Med. 2026;9(1):345. doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02517-5
  8. Mehandru N, Miao BY, Almaraz ER, Sushil M, Butte AJ, Alaa A. Evaluating large language models as agents in the clinic. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):84. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01083-y
  9. Ferber D, Hilgers L, Höper C, Kinny-Köster B, Eckardt JN, Egger-Heidrich K, et al. Towards autonomous medical artificial intelligence agents. Nature. 2026;655(8125):1282-91. doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10675-5
  10. Chen X, Xiang J, Lu S, Liu Y, He M, Shi D. Evaluating large language models and agents in healthcare: Key challenges in clinical applications. Intell Med. 2025;5(2):151-63. doi:10.1016/j.imed.2025.03.002
  11. Carayon P, Wooldridge AR, 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
  12. Lebovitz S, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Levina N. To engage or not to engage with AI for critical judgments: How professionals deal with opacity when using AI for medical diagnosis. Organ Sci. 2022;33(1):126-48. doi:10.1287/orsc.2021.1549
  13. Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Codella NCF, Halpern AC, et al. Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1229-34. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0
  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. 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
  16. 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
  17. Endsley MR. From here to autonomy: Lessons learned from human-automation research. Hum Factors. 2017;59(1):5-27. doi:10.1177/0018720816681350
  18. 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:m3216. doi:10.1136/bmj.m3216
  19. Wong A, Otles E, Donnelly JP, Krumm A, McCullough J, DeTroyer-Cooley O, et al. External validation of a widely implemented proprietary sepsis prediction model in hospitalized patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(8):1065-70. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2626
  20. Liu Y, Carrero ZI, Jiang X, Ferber D, Wölflein G, Zhang L, et al. Benchmarking large language model-based agent systems for clinical decision tasks. NPJ Digit Med. 2026;9(1):259. doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02443-6
  21. Reddy S, Allan S, Coghlan S, Cooper P. A governance model for the application of AI in health care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):491-7. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz192
  22. Char DS, Shah NH, Magnus D. Implementing machine learning in health care—addressing ethical challenges. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(11):981-3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1714229
  23. Vayena E, Blasimme A, Cohen IG. Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges. PLoS Med. 2018;15(11):e1002689. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689
  24. Price WN, Gerke S, Cohen IG. Potential liability for physicians using artificial intelligence. JAMA. 2019;322(18):1765-6. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.15064
  25. McDougall RJ. Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI. J Med Ethics. 2019;45(3):156-60. doi:10.1136/medethics-2018-105118
  26. 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
  27. Cruz Rivera S, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ, SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: The SPIRIT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020;26(9):1351-63. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-1037-7
  28. 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
  29. Labkoff S, Oladimeji B, Kannry J, Solomonides A, Leftwich R, Koski E, et al. Toward a responsible future: Recommendations for AI-enabled clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024;31(11):2730-9. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae209
  30. Hatzimanolis J, Riley B, El-Den S, Aslani P, Zhou J, Chaar BB. Applications of artificial intelligence in current pharmacy practice: A scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2025;21(3):134-41. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.007
  31. 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
  32. Ryan DK, Maclean RH, Balston A, Scourfield A, Shah AD, Ross J. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2024;90(3):629-39. doi:10.1111/bcp.15930
  33. Alqahtani SS, Menachery SJ, Alshahrani A, Albalkhi B, Alshayban D, Iqbal MZ. Artificial intelligence in clinical pharmacy—a systematic review of current scenario and future perspectives. Digit Health. 2025;11:20552076251388145. doi:10.1177/20552076251388145
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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):e745-50. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00208-9
  37. Futoma J, Simons M, Panch T, Doshi-Velez F, Celi LA. The myth of generalisability in clinical research and machine learning in health care. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(9):e489-92. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30186-2
 

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