New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Docs Given Updated Opioid Prescribing Habit

Researchers dialed down the default number of opioids in two hospitals’ prescription systems—and doctors ended up prescribing fewer pills. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Used to be, when doctors prescribed a drug, they’d open up a book summarizing drugs and dosages—or go by memory for the common stuff. But nowadays? 

“Now you can type in whatever it is. It’s placing an order via the computer. So you type in an order of the name of the drug, and it'll prepopulate everything.”

Juan Carlos Montoy is an emergency medicine physician at San Francisco General Hospital. He also studies decision-making in health care. He says for an antibiotic, the default dose programmed into a doctor’s computer might be pretty standard. But for pain, the number of opioids prescribed might vary a lot, depending on the patient and their type of pain. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“What we wanted to look at was: tell whether and to what extent the presets, the default settings we have in the electronic medical record, influenced provider prescribing.”

Specifically, would lower defaults result in fewer opioids being prescribed?

So Montoy’s team systematically changed the recommended-opioid-pill-number defaults in the computer systems of two hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area during an eight-month period. Each hospital’s preexisting defaults were 12 and 20 pills, respectively. The researchers dialed in new defaults of five, 10, 15 or an unspecified number of pills.

Compared to doctors’ prior prescribing habits, the new default settings resulted in fewer opioid pills prescribed overall—and fewer prescriptions exceeding the maximum recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“This suggests that other hospitals, other emergency departments, can change those settings and impact opioid prescribing pretty much immediately. It’s a really low-cost intervention and can be done really quickly.” 

The results are in the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] Internal Medicine. [Juan Carlos C. Montoy et al., Association of default electronic medical record settings with health care professional patterns of opioid prescribing in emergency departments: A randomized quality improvement study]

“This is definitely not a silver bullet. The epidemic has a lot of different issues that need to be addressed, and this is one small tool we can use to address it.”

Still, it could be a useful prescription for physicians.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe