What are the risks of using AI in pharmacy?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into healthcare settings, including pharmacy practice. Current and anticipated uses include clinical decision-support systems, prescription-checking software, patient-facing chatbots, and workflow automation tools.

AI is widely expected to improve efficiency and patient care, but also introduces new legal, regulatory, and professional risks. Historically, there has been limited guidance on the use of AI by pharmacy professionals, but regulators are now responding. In April 2026, the General Pharmaceutical Council (“GPhC”) published a new position statement on the use of AI in pharmacy, recognising both the opportunities and risks.

The GPhC’s guidance emphasises that AI should support, rather than replace, professional judgment. Pharmacists remain accountable for the decisions they make and for the care provided to patients, regardless of whether AI tools form part of their decision-making.

Lessons from other professions

There have not yet been any reported clinical negligence cases against pharmacists in respect of their use of AI. However, incidents involving other professions give an indication of the risks for pharmacists and how the courts might approach cases.

In Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025], the High Court held that legal professionals have a professional duty to verify caselaw authorities before relying on them. The court was highly critical of the submission of AI-generated material that had not been independently checked, and emphasised that reliance upon generative AI does not excuse professional failings.

This and other publicised incidents involving legal services highlight some themes:

• over-reliance on AI outputs;
• failure to identify inaccuracies or “hallucinations”;
• automation bias, where professionals defer to AI recommendations rather than exercising independent judgment; and
• failure to independently verify AI-generated information.

Impact on clinical negligence claims

Although generative AI can hallucinate a caselaw precedent, it cannot hallucinate a drug or prescription, so the pharmacist’s role in dispensing medication may not be significantly affected.

However, many risks still exist. The Independent Prescribing Rollout and expanded “Pharmacy First” scheme are examples of how pharmacy practice is changing. These are areas where AI could be used to help support pharmacists, for example when prescribing, in medication reviews, and when giving advice to patients.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into pharmacy services, the key issue is unlikely to be whether it is acceptable in general for AI to be used, but whether the pharmacist’s reliance on it in a particular instance was reasonable and defensible.

The Bolam test will still apply, so pharmacists will generally not be negligent if their actions would be supported by a responsible body of professional opinion. The difficulty in future may be proving what a reasonable pharmacist should do, given that AI in pharmacy is relatively new, and that AI might be used to support aspects of pharmacy practice that are also relatively new. Cases such as Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey suggest that, in principle, the AI output should be verified, but expert pharmacy evidence would still be needed to explain what steps a reasonable pharmacist should take in the particular circumstances of the case.

Even if expert evidence is available, in such a swiftly developing area the Bolitho principle may be particularly important. This provides that, even where a body of professional opinion supports a particular approach, courts may still examine whether that approach is capable of withstanding logical analysis.

Where an AI system is alleged to have contributed to patient harm, disputes may arise about whether the harm resulted purely from clinical negligence, purely technology failure, or a combination of both. The injured patient could include clinical negligence and product liability allegations in the same action. Alternatively, the patient might sue only the pharmacist, leaving the pharmacist and their indemnifier to decide whether to face the difficulties and costs risks involved in bringing a contribution claim against the AI provider.

Disputes could involve multiple parties, including pharmacists, pharmacy owners, and AI providers, along with insurers or indemnifiers for most or all of them. Determining where responsibility lies, and apportioning losses, could become significantly more complex than in pre-AI clinical negligence claims.

Regulatory and Fitness to Practise risks

A key regulatory risk will be over-reliance on AI-generated outputs. While AI may assist with medicines optimisation, prescribing support, and patient communications, pharmacists must continue to exercise independent professional judgment. The GPhC guidance confirms that decisions affecting patient care should not be delegated entirely to automated systems.

The GPhC also highlights the importance of understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI systems. Pharmacy providers should ensure that staff receive appropriate training and are equipped to identify potential inaccuracies, bias, or errors in AI-generated recommendations. Locum pharmacists may face particular pressure if they have limited time to familiarise themselves with AI-supported systems and processes at a new location.

The use of AI also requires consideration around transparency, governance, and data protection. Organisations implementing AI-enabled services should ensure that appropriate policies, monitoring arrangements, and safeguards are in place, particularly where patient information is processed or clinical decisions are influenced by automated systems.

Failure to implement appropriate safeguards may expose pharmacists and pharmacy providers to regulatory scrutiny. Where patient safety concerns arise, AI-related errors could also lead to Fitness to Practise investigations against individual pharmacists, concerning competence, professional judgment, or professional misconduct.

Liability and insurance considerations

The use of AI in pharmacy also complicates the insurance or indemnity arrangements for claims. Pharmacy providers should consider whether their use of AI is adequately reflected in their existing medical indemnity arrangements.

The GPhC requires pharmacists to have “adequate and appropriate” indemnity. The Insurance Act 2015 imposes a ‘duty of fair presentation’, meaning that if material information is not presented when the policy is purchased, insurance cover can be withdrawn or reduced later on. Therefore, before purchasing insurance or an indemnity arrangement, pharmacists should take stock of what AI tools they use or plan to introduce, get guidance on whether that information needs to be communicated to the intended insurer or indemnifier, and make sure that errors involving the use of those tools are within the scope of their cover.

Embedding AI safely in practice

Whilst AI has the potential to improve efficiency and support clinical decision-making, its use should be accompanied by appropriate governance, oversight, and risk management processes. Organisations introducing AI-enabled services should ensure that staff understand the limitations of these technologies and that clear accountability for decision-making is maintained.

Practical safeguards include:

• understanding the limitations and potential failure points of AI systems;
• maintaining clear audit trails and documentation of AI-assisted decisions;
• independently verifying AI-generated recommendations and information;
• keeping up to date with evolving GPhC guidance and wider regulatory developments;
• complying with data protection and confidentiality obligations; and
• providing appropriate staff training and governance arrangements for AI-enabled services.

As the legal and regulatory framework continues to develop, pharmacists should view AI as a tool to support decision-making rather than a substitute for professional expertise. In the meantime, the risk is likely to remain with the pharmacist rather than the technology.

If you have questions or concerns about AI in pharmacy or require advice or representation in a claim or investigation, please contact Natasha Ricioppo, Joanne Staphnill, or Tracy Sell-Peters.