A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21127v1
• Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 11:58:49 GMT
• Title: A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care
• Authors: Oliver Normand, Esther Borsi, Mitch Fruin, Lauren E Walker, Jamie Heagerty, Chris C. Holmes, Anthony J Avery, Iain E Buchan, Harry Coppock,
• Abstract summary: This is the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data.<n>We strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk.<n>Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present.
• Score: 5.167350493769989
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often match or exceed clinician-level performance on medical benchmarks, yet very few are evaluated on real clinical data or examined beyond headline metrics. We present, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data, with detailed characterisation of key failure behaviours across varying levels of clinical complexity. In a retrospective study using a population-scale EHR spanning 2,125,549 adults in NHS Cheshire and Merseyside, we strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk, yielding 277 patients after data-quality exclusions. An expert clinician reviewed these patients and graded system-identified issues and proposed interventions. Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present (sensitivity 100\% [95\% CI 98.2--100], specificity 83.1\% [95\% CI 72.7--90.1]), yet correctly identified all issues and interventions in only 46.9\% [95\% CI 41.1--52.8] of patients. Failure analysis reveals that, in this setting, the dominant failure mechanism is contextual reasoning rather than missing medication knowledge, with five primary patterns: overconfidence in uncertainty, applying standard guidelines without adjusting for patient context, misunderstanding how healthcare is delivered in practice, factual errors, and process blindness. These patterns persisted across patient complexity and demographic strata, and across a range of state-of-the-art models and configurations. We provide 45 detailed vignettes that comprehensively cover all identified failure cases. This work highlights shortcomings that must be addressed before LLM-based clinical AI can be safely deployed. It also begs larger-scale, prospective evaluations and deeper study of LLM behaviours in clinical contexts.

Related papers

• LiveClin: A Live Clinical Benchmark without Leakage [50.45415584327275]
  LiveClin is a live benchmark designed for approximating real-world clinical practice.<n>We transform authentic patient cases into complex, multimodal evaluation scenarios that span the entire clinical pathway.<n>Our evaluation of 26 models on LiveClin reveals the profound difficulty of these real-world scenarios, with the top-performing model achieving a Case Accuracy of just 35.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T03:59:46Z)
• Automated Rubrics for Reliable Evaluation of Medical Dialogue Systems [19.880569341968023]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety.<n>We propose a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework designed to automate the generation of instance-specific evaluation rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:40:41Z)
• Exploring Membership Inference Vulnerabilities in Clinical Large Language Models [42.52690697965999]
  We present an exploratory empirical study on membership inference vulnerabilities in clinical large language models (LLMs)<n>Using a state-of-the-art clinical question-answering model, Llemr, we evaluate both canonical loss-based attacks and a domain-motivated paraphrasing-based perturbation strategy.<n>Results motivate continued development of context-aware, domain-specific privacy evaluations and defenses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T14:27:48Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains [15.73821689524201]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in clinical decision support but face major challenges in safety evaluation and effectiveness validation.<n>We developed the Clinical Safety-Effectiveness Dual-Track Benchmark (CSEDB), a multidimensional framework built on clinical expert consensus.<n>Thirty-two specialist physicians developed and reviewed 2,069 open-ended Q&A items aligned with these criteria, spanning 26 clinical departments to simulate real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T12:10:00Z)
• Beyond Benchmarks: Dynamic, Automatic And Systematic Red-Teaming Agents For Trustworthy Medical Language Models [87.66870367661342]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in AI applications in healthcare.<n>Red-teaming framework that continuously stress-test LLMs can reveal significant weaknesses in four safety-critical domains.<n>A suite of adversarial agents is applied to autonomously mutate test cases, identify/evolve unsafe-triggering strategies, and evaluate responses.<n>Our framework delivers an evolvable, scalable, and reliable safeguard for the next generation of medical AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:44:22Z)
• An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning [69.46279475491164]
  We introduce DeepRare, the first rare disease diagnosis agentic system powered by a large language model (LLM)<n>DeepRare generates ranked diagnostic hypotheses for rare diseases, each accompanied by a transparent chain of reasoning.<n>The system demonstrates exceptional diagnostic performance among 2,919 diseases, achieving 100% accuracy for 1013 diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T13:42:26Z)
• HealthQA-BR: A System-Wide Benchmark Reveals Critical Knowledge Gaps in Large Language Models [0.0]
  HealthQA-BR is the first large-scale, system-wide benchmark for Portuguese-speaking healthcare.<n>It uniquely assesses knowledge not only in medicine and its specialties but also in nursing, dentistry, psychology, social work, and other allied health professions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T07:40:25Z)
• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns.<n>Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance.<n>We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.