Archive \ Volume.17 2026 Issue 2

Treating AI-Generated Medication Plans as Reversible and Auditable Clinical Objects

, , ,
  1. Department of Reversible AI Medication Plans, College of Pharmacy, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman.
  2. Department of Auditable Clinical AI Objects, College of Pharmacy, University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman.
  3. Department of Medication Plan Governance, College of Pharmacy, Dhofar University, Salalah, Oman.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence can generate medication plans that appear clinically coherent while remaining difficult to inspect, update, attribute, or reconstruct. When such plans persist only as prose, their assumptions, supporting evidence, model provenance, professional review, and subsequent modifications may become disconnected from the decisions they influence. This article proposes that an AI-generated medication plan should be represented as a reversible and auditable clinical-information object rather than treated as ephemeral text or an automatically executable medication order. The proposed Auditable Medication-Plan Object Model combines persistent identity, patient- and time-specific context, structured medication actions, rationale, evidence dependencies, uncertainty, model provenance, professional authorization, immutable versions, governance states, and append-only audit events. Material modification creates a successor version without erasing its predecessor. Reversal is separated into informational withdrawal or rollback and, where medication-related action has already occurred, clinical corrective or compensating action. Approval is represented as a version-specific professional decision rather than evidence of correctness or safety. Evaluation should test identity integrity, lineage completeness, state-transition validity, evidence traceability, recoverability, role comprehension, workflow burden, equity implications, and the separation of technical restoration from clinical recovery. The model is an original conceptual synthesis intended to organize future specification, human-factors assessment, workflow simulation, and prospective evaluation. It does not establish clinical effectiveness, medication-safety improvement, regulatory acceptability, legal sufficiency, universal applicability, or deployment readiness.


Downloads: 20
Views: 83

How to cite:
Vancouver
Al-Hinai S, Al-Balushi A, Al-Maskari M, Al-Mahruqi S. Treating AI-Generated Medication Plans as Reversible and Auditable Clinical Objects. Arch Pharm Pract. 2026;17(2):75-83. https://doi.org/10.51847/OfbpAj2FTy
APA
Al-Hinai, S., Al-Balushi, A., Al-Maskari, M., & Al-Mahruqi, S. (2026). Treating AI-Generated Medication Plans as Reversible and Auditable Clinical Objects. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 17(2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.51847/OfbpAj2FTy

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. Lee P, Bubeck S, Petro J. Benefits, limits, and risks of GPT-4 as an AI chatbot for medicine. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(13):1233-9. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr2214184
  3. 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
  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. Garcia-Gomez JM, Blanes-Selva V, Alvarez Romero C, de Bartolome Cenzano JC, Pereira Mesquita F, Pazos A, et al. Mitigating patient harm risks: A proposal of requirements for AI in healthcare. Artif Intell Med. 2025;167:103168. doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103168
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Gebru T, Morgenstern J, Vecchione B, Vaughan JW, Wallach H, Daumé H III, et al. Datasheets for datasets. Commun ACM. 2021;64(12):86-92. doi:10.1145/3458723
  9. Lehne M, Sass J, Essenwanger A, Schepers J, Thun S. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:79. doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0158-1
  10. Bennett AM, Ulrich H, van Damme P, Wiedekopf J, Johnson AEW. MIMIC-IV on FHIR: Converting a decade of in-patient data into an exchangeable, interoperable format. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023;30(4):718-25. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad002
  11. Duda SN, Kennedy N, Conway D, Cheng AC, Nguyen V, Zayas-Cabán T, et al. HL7 FHIR-based tools and initiatives to support clinical research: A scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(9):1642-53. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac105
  12. 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
  13. Bedoya AD, Economou-Zavlanos NJ, Goldstein BA, Young A, Jelovsek JE, O’Brien C, et al. A framework for the oversight and local deployment of safe and high-quality prediction models. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2022;29(9):1631-6. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac078
  14. Davis SE, Lasko TA, Chen G, Siew ED, Matheny ME. Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(6):1052-61. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx030
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Rule A, Chiang MF, Hribar MR. Using electronic health record audit logs to study clinical activity: A systematic review of aims, measures, and methods. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020;27(3):480-90. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocz196
  18. Adler-Milstein J, Adelman JS, Tai-Seale M, Patel VL, Dymek C. EHR audit logs: A new goldmine for health services research? J Biomed Inform. 2020;101:103343. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103343
  19. Rule A, Melnick ER, Apathy NC. Using event logs to observe interactions with electronic health records: An updated scoping review shows increasing use of vendor-derived measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023;30(1):144-54. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac177
  20. Lewis AE, Weiskopf N, Abrams ZB, Foraker R, Lai AM, Payne PRO, et al. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023;30(10):1730-40. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad120
  21. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK, Chan AW, et al. 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
  22. Cruz Rivera S, Liu X, Chan AW, Denniston AK, Calvert MJ, Ashrafian H, et al. 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
  23. 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
  24. Vollmer S, Mateen BA, Bohner G, Király FJ, Ghani R, Jonsson P, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence research for patient benefit: 20 critical questions on transparency, replicability, ethics, and effectiveness. BMJ. 2020;368. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6927
  25. Rajkomar A, Hardt M, Howell MD, Corrado G, Chin MH. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(12):866-72. doi:10.7326/M18-1990
  26. 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
  27. McCradden MD, Joshi S, Mazwi M, Anderson JA. Ethical limitations of algorithmic fairness solutions in health care machine learning. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(5). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30065-0
  28. Grote T, Berens P. On the ethics of algorithmic decision-making in healthcare. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(3):205-11. doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105586
  29. Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, Gordon AC, Komorowski M, Harvey H, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: Systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368. doi:10.1136/bmj.m689
  30. 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
  31. Challen R, Denny J, Pitt M, Gompels L, Edwards T, Tsaneva-Atanasova K. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):231-7. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370

 

 

 


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