Archive \ Volume.16 2025 Issue 1

The Hidden Work of Digital Pharmacy: Preserving Context, Judgment, and Responsibility in AI-Supported Care

, ,
  1. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Digital Ethics, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
  2. Department of Clinical Judgment and AI Accountability, Faculty of Pharmacy, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.

Abstract

Digital pharmacy systems increasingly make medication tasks visible as data fields, alerts, rankings, recommendations, and documented actions. Yet these representations can conceal the work required to make digital outputs clinically meaningful, including reconstructing incomplete context, repairing medication information, interpreting uncertainty, negotiating feasible care, and retaining responsibility for decisions and follow-up. This conceptual practice article proposes the Hidden Work Preservation Framework to explain how artificial intelligence may support, remove, shift, create, delay, or obscure such work. The framework distinguishes visible digital task completion from five interdependent practice domains: context-recovery, information-repair, interpretive, relational, and responsibility-bearing work. It further proposes a preservation loop through which patient-specific context is recovered, information is repaired, outputs are interpreted with patients and care teams, decisions are made or escalated, ownership and rationale are documented, and consequences are monitored. Evaluation should therefore extend beyond model discrimination or task time to context fidelity, repair burden, calibrated reliance, relational continuity, responsibility traceability, medication safety, equity, workflow redistribution, and organizational sustainability. These domains require direct observation, workflow mapping, record and incident review, patient and staff inquiry, subgroup analysis, and prospective evaluation in the intended setting. The framework is not a validated clinical algorithm, staffing model, regulatory standard, or autonomous decision pathway. Its original contribution is to make preservation of context, judgment, and responsibility an explicit design and evaluation problem for AI-supported pharmacy care.


Downloads: 25
Views: 119

How to cite:
Vancouver
Tanaka K, Kobayashi Y, Nakamura T. The Hidden Work of Digital Pharmacy: Preserving Context, Judgment, and Responsibility in AI-Supported Care. Arch Pharm Pract. 2025;16(1):43-9. https://doi.org/10.51847/93LGPx91jn
APA
Tanaka, K., Kobayashi, Y., & Nakamura, T. (2025). The Hidden Work of Digital Pharmacy: Preserving Context, Judgment, and Responsibility in AI-Supported Care. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 16(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.51847/93LGPx91jn

Download Citation
References
  1. 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
  2. Ranchon F, Chanoine S, Lambert-Lacroix S, Bosson JL, Moreau-Gaudry A, Bedouch P. Development of artificial intelligence powered apps and tools for clinical pharmacy services: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2023;172:104983. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104983
  3. Bergey MR, Goldsack JC, Robinson EJ. Invisible work and changing roles: Health information technology implementation and reorganization of work practices for the inpatient nursing team. Soc Sci Med. 2019;235:112387. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112387
  4. Hussain MI, Reynolds TL, Zheng K. Medication safety alert fatigue may be reduced via interaction design and clinical role tailoring: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(10):1141-9. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz095
  5. Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan WJ, Sinsky CA, et al. Tethered to the EHR: Primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(5):419-26. doi:10.1370/afm.2121
  6. Kjos AL, Bryant GA. Communication networks of medication management in an ambulatory care setting. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):182-92. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.04.010
  7. van Dort BA, Zheng WY, Baysari MT. Prescriber perceptions of medication-related computerized decision support systems in hospitals: A synthesis of qualitative research. Int J Med Inform. 2019;129:285-95. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.06.024
  8. Melnick ER, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky CA, Trockel M, West CP, Nedelec L, et al. The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US physicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(3):476-87. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024
  9. Redmond P, Grimes TC, McDonnell R, Boland F, Hughes C, Fahey T. Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8(8):CD010791. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010791.pub2
  10. Schnipper JL, Mixon A, Stein J, Wetterneck TB, Kaboli PJ, Mueller S, et al. Effects of a multifaceted medication reconciliation quality improvement intervention on patient safety: Final results of the MARQUIS study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(12):954-64. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008233
  11. Légat L, Van Laere S, Nyssen M, Steurbaut S, Dupont AG, Cornu P. Clinical decision support systems for drug allergy checking: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(9):e258. doi:10.2196/jmir.8206
  12. 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
  13. Kerasidou A. Artificial intelligence and the ongoing need for empathy, compassion and trust in healthcare. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(4):245-50. doi:10.2471/BLT.19.237198
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Morley J, Machado CCV, Burr C, Cowls J, Joshi I, Taddeo M, et al. The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Soc Sci Med. 2020;260:113172. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172
  17. 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
  18. 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(1):17. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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):e367. doi:10.2196/jmir.8775
  22. 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
  23. Marcilly R, Colliaux J, Robert L, Pelayo S, Beuscart JB, Rousselière C, et al. Improving the usability and usefulness of computerized decision support systems for medication review by clinical pharmacists: A convergent, parallel evaluation. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023;19(1):144-54. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.08.012
  24. 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
  25. Silva ROS, de Araújo DCSA, dos Santos Menezes PW, Neves ERZ, de Lyra DP Jr. Digital pharmacists: The new wave in pharmacy practice and education. Int J Clin Pharm. 2022;44(3):775-80. doi:10.1007/s11096-021-01365-5
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
 

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