Skip to main content

Embedding AI Error Detection Into Primary Care Safety Culture

 As artificial intelligence (AI) become increasingly embedded in routine healthcare - supporting tasks such as triage, documentation, interpretation of investigation, diagnosis and patient communication - it introduces new patient safety risks through incorrect outputs (“hallucinations”) that should be treated as safety errors rather than technical glitches. In our article in the Journal of Patient Safety, we argue that primary care must extend its established safety culture to AI by systematically detecting, classifying, reporting, and learning from AI-related errors using principles already applied to human error, such as audit, governance, and incident reporting. 

We highlight evidence that AI-generated clinical text can contain omissions, fabrications, or unsafe recommendations that may not be apparent to clinicians and patients and that risk becoming “silent errors” in electronic health records. These errors can then contribute to cognitive offloading if clinicians over-trust AI outputs. To mitigate these risks, we call for routine AI oversight in practice (including review, sampling, and escalation), explicit clinician accountability for AI-influenced outputs, patient engagement in spotting discrepancies, and closer collaboration with AI developers. 

Ultimately, AI errors are inevitable, and that embedding AI safety as a core, proactive design feature - rather than an afterthought - is essential to ensure AI enhances rather than compromises patient safety in primary care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

Talking to Patients About Weight-Loss Drugs

The use of weight-loss drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists (e.g., semaglutide, tirzepatide) has increased rapidly in recent years. These drugs can help some people achieve significant weight reduction, but they are not suitable for everyone and require careful counselling before starting treatment. By discussing benefits, risks, practicalities, and  uncertainties, clinicians can help patients make informed, realistic decisions about their treatment. Key points to discuss with patients 1. Indications and eligibility These drugs are usually licensed for adults with a specific BMI. They should be used alongside lifestyle interventions such as dietary change, increased physical activity, and behaviour modification. 2. Potential side effects – some can be serious Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and abdominal discomfort. Less common but more serious risks include gallstones, pancreatitis and visual problems. Patients should know what to watch for a...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...