Archive \ Volume.17 2026 Issue 1

When the Medication Record Disagrees with Itself: A Multi-Agent Reconciliation Architecture

, ,
  1. Department of Medication Record Reconciliation and AI, Faculty of Pharmacy, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
  2. Department of Multi-Agent Systems in Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Abstract

Medication reconciliation is commonly represented as the production of one accurate medication list from several incomplete records. This representation obscures a more difficult problem: medication records are source-specific accounts produced for different purposes, at different times, and under different documentation conditions. Prescribing records, dispensing histories, administration records, clinical notes, and patient reports may therefore disagree without any source being uniformly authoritative. This article proposes a multi-agent medication-record reconciliation architecture that treats each record entry as a temporally situated assertion rather than an unquestioned fact. Bounded source-specific agents extract medication assertions while preserving provenance, documentation time, inferred validity intervals, uncertainty, and source limitations. Shared services normalize medication identity, classify disagreement, assess evidence suitability, and construct conflict sets without silently deleting competing assertions. A reconciliation orchestrator generates provisional medication states, while an independent challenge function examines unsupported assumptions and correlated agreement. Conflicts exceeding configured authority or evidentiary sufficiency are transferred to structured human adjudication, external verification, or safety escalation. The proposed architecture distinguishes semantic, temporal, intentional, provenance, omission, and uncertainty disagreements and separates technical reconciliation performance from workflow usefulness, medication safety, equity, and patient outcomes. Validation would require staged component testing, multisite retrospective assessment, silent prospective evaluation, human-factors studies, comparative workflow evaluation, subgroup analysis, clinical-outcome investigation, and postdeployment monitoring. The architecture is an original non-empirical synthesis. It does not establish that multi-agent reconciliation is superior to conventional software or pharmacist-led practice, and it should not be interpreted as a clinically validated, autonomous, or deployment-ready system.


Downloads: 28
Views: 116

How to cite:
Vancouver
Botha P, Van Wyk A, Marais J. When the Medication Record Disagrees with Itself: A Multi-Agent Reconciliation Architecture. Arch Pharm Pract. 2026;17(1):22-30. https://doi.org/10.51847/zrzLpexlrL
APA
Botha, P., Van Wyk, A., & Marais, J. (2026). When the Medication Record Disagrees with Itself: A Multi-Agent Reconciliation Architecture. Archives of Pharmacy Practice, 17(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.51847/zrzLpexlrL

Download Citation
References
  1. Walsh KE, Marsolo KA, Davis C, Todd T, Martineau B, Arbaugh C, et al. Accuracy of the medication list in the electronic health record—implications for care, research, and improvement. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(7):909-12. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy027
  2. Bell SK, Delbanco T, Elmore JG, Fitzgerald PS, Fossa A, Harcourt K, et al. Frequency and types of patient-reported errors in electronic health record ambulatory care notes. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5867
  3. Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Buckeridge DL, Bustillo M, Forster AJ, Girard N, et al. Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation intervention on adverse drug events: A cluster randomized trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(9). doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10756
  4. 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
  5. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. The medication discrepancy taxonomy (MedTax): The development and validation of a classification system for medication discrepancies identified through medication reconciliation. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(2):142-8. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.005
  6. Tamblyn R, Winslade N, Lee TC, Motulsky A, Meguerditchian AN, Bustillo M, et al. Improving patient safety and efficiency of medication reconciliation through the development and adoption of a computer-assisted tool with automated electronic integration of population-based community drug data: The RightRx project. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(5):482-95. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx107
  7. Prey JE, Polubriaginof F, Grossman LV, Masterson Creber R, Tsapepas D, Perotte R, et al. Engaging hospital patients in the medication reconciliation process using tablet computers. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(11):1460-9. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocy115
  8. Schnipper JL, Mixon AS, Stein J, Wetterneck TB, Kaboli PJ, Mueller SK, 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
  9. Tabja Bortesi JP, Becerra MP, Ranisau J, Wen B, Nadesan P, Devereaux PJ, et al. AI-based automation for medication reconciliation: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2026;28. doi:10.2196/86760
  10. Xu G, Li X, Chen Y, Duan Y, Wu S, Yu H, et al. A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare. J Biomed Inform. 2026;179:105045. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2026.105045
  11. Chen X, Yi H, You M, Liu W, Wang L, Li H, et al. Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models. npj Digit Med. 2025;8:159. doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01550-0
  12. Zhao W, Wu C, Fan Y, Qiu P, Zhang X, Sun Y, et al. An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning. Nature. 2026;651(8106):775-84. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-10097-9
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Alfattni G, Peek N, Nenadic G. Extraction of temporal relations from clinical free text: A systematic review of current approaches. J Biomed Inform. 2020;108:103488. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2020.103488
  16. Shang N, Weng C, Hripcsak G. A conceptual framework for evaluating data suitability for observational studies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(3):248-58. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx095
  17. 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
  18. 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;4:31. doi:10.1038/s41746-021-00385-9
  19. 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
  20. 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
  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. 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. 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. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(10). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30218-1
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  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. Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, Balu S. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. npj Digit Med. 2020;3:41. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0253-3
  29. Obermeyer Z, Powers BW, 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
  30. Gianfrancesco MA, Tamang S, Yazdany J, Schmajuk G. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1544-7. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763
  31. Kelly CJ, Karthikesalingam A, Suleyman M, Corrado G, King D. Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC Med. 2019;17:195. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2

 

 


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