Enterprise Ecosystem Design

Care Navigation

When we launched the first version of Care Navigation, the usage volume plummeted. Providers saw the new side panel, and they ignored it completely. What looked like a straightforward embedded workflow had become an optional detour — and no one was taking it. This is the story of how we recovered from that failure, discovered why clinical tools need to be active rather than passive, and ultimately grew usage volume by 11x.

Role

Lead Designer

Team

1 PM, engineering teams across 3 business units

Timeline

Apr - Nov, 2025

Key outcomes

11x recommendation volume growth within first month

Scaled across multiple EMR platforms

Established design patterns for future applications

Due to NDA, some design details are abstracted to protect proprietary information

The context

Unifying a fragmented care recommendation landscape

Doctors navigated multiple disconnected EMR(electronic medical record) systems with no unified way to coordinate care. Each operated in isolation, forcing manual context-switching for every care recommendation.

This fragmentation prevented the organization from achieving its care coordination goals. Without unified tools, providers couldn't effectively guide patients/members toward the full spectrum of available care.

The workflow

What is recommendation process

Here's the basic flow. A doctor starts a virtual visit. The system identifies that the patient is eligible for a care program. The doctor reviews the recommendation and can act on it through the side panel — without leaving their current tool. And the patient gets connected to the right program.

The approach

Created a consistent workflow layer that works across existing tools.

I was brought in here to design the recommendation tool that works across all platforms

Challenge #1

The first launch on legacy system failed, the recommendation volume plummeted

When launching the sidecar, we replaced the legacy embedded workflow with a prominent button in the exact same location.

We assumed habit would drive clicks. We were wrong. By moving the workflow out of the main view and behind a click, referrals transformed from a natural workflow step into an "optional detour." Engagement plummeted immediately.

Why providers didn't open it?

Talking to providers revealed the root issue: banner blindness. Even though the entry point was visible, it looked like static information rather than an actionable tool. In a high-pressure clinical environment, passive tools fade into the background. I needed to shift from passive availability to active assistance—without adding cognitive friction.

Explored option #1: Embedded card

I considered an option in the chief complaint section for earlier, more contextual placement. It serves as an inline card instead of pop-up.

Pros:

  • Highly contextual

  • Early intervention

Cons:

  • More dev efforts

  • TOO early in the flow (providers haven’t finished diagnose)Early intervention

Explored option #2: Opt-out model

One option considered was auto-presenting recommendations, but this conflicted with doctor autonomy.

Pros:

  • High conversion potential

  • Reduce friction for adoption

Cons:

  • Violate user agency

  • Create opt-out fatigue

  • Extra clicks

Final solution

Prompting at the point of decision

I chose a contextual notification in the Follow Up tab—precisely when providers are formulating care plans. Instead of disrupting the clinical workflow upstream, this nudge appears downstream, serving as a just-in-time reminder exactly when the decision is being made.

Why this timing worked: leveraging existing behavior

This timing wasn't arbitrary—it leveraged providers' existing muscle memory. In the legacy workflow, providers made referrals in this exact tab.

By keeping the notification in the same location, we reduced the cognitive load of adopting a new pattern. `We'd already changed the interaction model (embedded → sidecar). Changing the timing too would have compounded the disruption.` This "minimal effective change" approach proved critical: providers could maintain their existing workflow rhythm while adapting to the new interface.

Key results

Notification-driven activation proved effective: recommendation showed significant sustained growth over the legacy workflow.

Challenge #2

Balancing partner requirements with internal program priorities

As Care Navigation expanded to include external referral partners, we faced a strategic deadlock: balancing external partner requirements with internal program priorities. We needed a way to fulfill contracts without diluting core business value.

Exploring de-emphasis

I initially framed this as a suppression challenge—finding ways to show external options without giving them visual weight. Each approach added complexity without solving the tension.

Through rounds of provider and stakeholder feedback, patterns emerged. They wanted simplicity and upfront visibility—they wanted to see available programs without extra navigation. Stakeholders emphasized consistency—visual treatments that felt disconnected wouldn't work.

Final decision

Reframing the solution

I realized I was designing for the org chart, not the user. Providers don't categorize care by "Vendor Source" but by "Clinical Need."

Instead of segregating options, I created a single list organized by clinical relevance, which naturally surfaced the most appropriate options first.

How sorting logic satisfied both sides

The solution relied on intelligent sorting: - Programs ranked by clinical relevance and insurance coverage first - Internal programs benefited from tighter system integration, naturally appearing higher in results - Partners remained visible and searchable for all applicable cases

This approach satisfied both contract requirements (visibility) and business priorities (internal program preference) without requiring artificial suppression.

The Outcome: Compliance without Compromise

The unified list resolved the stakeholder conflict immediately:

  • Partner Compliance: Achieved 100% visibility requirements.

  • Internal Priority: Internal programs retained #1 slot positioning.

  • UX Win: Reduced searching time, allowing faster care coordination.

Reflections

What this project taught me about ecosystem design

Behavior change compounds, users need to be informed

When changing the container (embedded → sidecar), I’ve already spent the disruption budget. Changing the timing too would have asked users to rebuild two habits at once. I learned that behavioral redesigns need to preserve at least one familiar anchor.

User-centered frameworks resolve stakeholder conflicts

The partner visibility problem seemed political until I reframed it around how providers actually think. They don’t categorize care by source — they categorize by clinical relevance. Once I organized the list by clinical need instead of business origin, the political tension dissolved because the hierarchy was driven by the user’s mental model, not by our org chart.