ArticleAustralasian journal on ageing2026
Development of a High-Risk Medication List for Australian Residential Aged Care: A Modified Delphi Study.
Article in Australasian journal on ageing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
34 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHigh-risk medications are medications associated with significant patient harm or death if misused or used in error. This study aimed to develop a national consensus high-risk medication list for use in Australian residential aged care.
methodsA 3-round modified Delphi study involving Australian healthcare professionals was conducted. In Round 1, participants indicated their level of agreement, on a 9-point Likert scale, whether 60 medications/medication classes were considered high-risk and should be included in a high-risk medication list for Australian residential aged care. Round 2 included medications/medication classes that did not reach consensus and new medications identified by participants. Consensus was defined as 70% or more of participants responding at 7 or higher on the Likert scale. In Round 3, participants were asked to prioritise medications/medication classes that reached consensus in Round 1 or 2.
resultsIn total, 42 participants completed Round 1, and 35 (83%) completed all three rounds. Participants included pharmacists (n = 21), prescribers (n = 15), nurses (n = 5) and a paramedic (n = 1), with representation from all Australian states and mainland territories. Overall, 26 medications reached consensus (21 in Round 1, five in Round 2) and were categorised into 15 medications/medication classes for prioritisation in Round 3. The final prioritisation list was opioids, insulin, benzodiazepines, anticoagulants, z-drugs, antipsychotics, lithium, sulfonylureas with high risk of hypoglycaemia, chemotherapeutic agents, methotrexate, digoxin, narrow therapeutic range antiepileptics, tricyclic antidepressants, immunosuppressants for transplant and sedating antihistamines. DISCUSSION: This is the first, national consensus list of high-risk medications developed specifically for Australian residential aged care. It can be used to implement targeted strategies to minimise medication-related harm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.