My role on the UX team was to redesign the Regimen Management experience within our oncology treatment planning suite. The goal was to replace fragmented, outdated workflows with a unified, intuitive interface that supports clinical decision-making across the entire treatment lifecycle.

From the moment a plan is selected providers should be able to make adjustments and audit changes. I focused on creating a workflow that is

Safe - By guiding providers
Intuitive - Providers know what to do without instructions
Efficient - Providers need minimum effort to do the job

whether the regimen includes a single item or is a complex and multi-phased treatment plan.

The core objective was to design the most comprehensive and intuitive regimen management view in the oncology market. A solution capable of supporting:

Both simple and highly complex regimens

Large volumes of medications across multiple treatment cycles

Flexible adjustments and thorough documentation

A unified view that combines editing, historical context, and future planning

This vision was shaped by several key drivers:

Ongoing user complaints about the limitations of current tools

Multiple prior redesign attempts that failed to meet clinical needs

A strategic push to future-proof our solution in a competitive and evolving market

Tools used throughout the process:

Figma – Primary tool for design and interactive prototyping

Miro – Used for mapping user journeys, affinity diagrams, and collaborative workshops

Confluence, Jira, Trello – For documentation, ticket tracking, and feedback loops

Google Suite – Used Forms and Meet for stakeholder interviews and collaborative planning

Google AI tools – Supported clustering, data synthesis, and pattern analysis during research

Collaborated closely with:

Fellow UX designers

Product owners

Oncology and pharmacy subject matter experts

Engineering and service implementation teams

Strengths

Supported basic regimen customization

Core functionality worked well for simple treatment plans

Weaknesses

Edits did not sync between ONC and Pharmacy modules

Limited to 12 treatment cycles

Navigation across views was fragmented and confusing

Scheduling and authorization logic was inconsistent across sites

Opportunities

Redesign the experience with flexible, future-proof building blocks

Standardize workflows across departments and facilities

Improve usability to better support clinicians and differentiate in the market

Threats

High workflow complexity and clinical risk

Requires tight cross-functional coordination

Risk of scope creep due to varied stakeholder needs

We designed the experience to support a diverse group of clinical and operational users, each with unique goals and responsibilities:

Oncologists and Advanced Practice Providers – Need speed and confidence when managing active regimens

Nurses – Require clear, accurate instructions to ensure safe and timely medication administration

Pharmacists – Depend on logical consistency and editable, audit-ready data

Schedulers and Billing Teams – Rely on accurate timelines and treatment statuses for downstream workflows

Medication Authorization Staff – Need clear documentation and the ability to track changes for insurance approvals

Each persona required access to different layers of detail, often at different points in the workflow. Balancing these needs in a single, unified interface was one of the core challenges of the UI design.

Before

In the original workflow, providers placed orders within the treatment plan, which were then sent to Pharmacy through a fragmented and manual handoff process. If any edits were required after signing, providers often had to cancel the entire plan or create multiple disconnected versions to reflect changes. This made it difficult to maintain a clear audit trail and often left teams unsure about what was originally intended versus what was actually delivered.

Clinicians expressed hesitation and frustration.

“I don’t know if changing this will break the whole regimen.”

After

With the redesigned workflow, providers can now manage doses and cycles in real time with full transparency. Changes are automatically synced to Pharmacy through a unified data structure, eliminating confusion and reducing the risk of error. A visual timeline clearly separates upcoming and historical cycles, making it easier to track treatment progression.

Every adjustment is versioned, scoped to a specific cycle or day, and fully auditable—preserving both intent and execution.

Clinicians now feel empowered and in control.

“I know what I changed, what it impacts, and what comes next.”

The legacy system violated several core usability heuristics, leading to confusion, inefficiency, and risk:

Lack of visibility into system status
Users could not easily distinguish between current, upcoming, and past treatment states, creating uncertainty about what was happening and when.

Mismatch between system behavior and real-world expectations
The interface did not reflect the mental models clinicians used to understand treatment logic, making it harder to interpret regimen structure and intent.

Inconsistency across user roles
Different users saw different versions of the regimen, depending on where they accessed it. This led to miscommunication and fragmented collaboration.

Overly dense interface with poor readability
Text-heavy screens lacked visual hierarchy and spacing, making it difficult to scan or focus. Important information was buried in undifferentiated blocks of content.

Accessibility shortcomings
Color contrast issues, lack of responsiveness, and poor readability in dark or light modes all made the interface difficult to use for a wide range of users, including those with accessibility needs.

Clinicians lacked a unified, flexible, and trustworthy way to manage signed treatment regimens across their full lifecycle. Existing tools were fragmented across modules, prone to errors, and difficult to navigate. As a result, providers hesitated to make changes, risking delays in care and breakdowns in communication between teams.

The Value Proposition

We set out to create a single, cohesive regimen management experience that is:

Intuitive and scalable across simple and complex treatment plans

Clinically aligned with the workflows and mental models of oncology teams

Strategically differentiated from competitor solutions in the EHR space

This new experience supports safe, real-time changes, provides visual clarity across the full timeline of care, and preserves treatment continuity—positioning our product for long-term success in a highly competitive market.

I conducted interviews with nine key internal stakeholders, also external users like oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, and QA reviewers. The goal was to understand how users interact with regimens throughout their lifecycle and where existing tools were falling short.

Key insights:

Users needed the ability to adjust individual cycles or full treatment plans without restarting the order process

Changes to dose timing, substitutions, or scheduling had to be both traceable and reversible

The distinction between “draft” and “active” regimens was unclear, leading to miscommunication and risk

To synthesize findings, I created an affinity map in Miro and grouped feedback into key categories:

Edit intent (cycle-level, dose-level, schedule-level)

Safety concerns and audit traceability

Timeline clarity and navigation

UI visual hierarchy and scanability

Documentation and communication gaps

These themes directly shaped our feature prioritization process, using a complexity vs. impact matrix to guide what we tackled first.

We explored three early interaction models to support complex regimen workflows:

Tabbed views for Edit, History, and Future

Accordion layout grouped by cycle

Scrollable matrix for full treatment visibility

After testing and evaluation, we selected an infinite scroll + fixed column layout. This approach struck the right balance between longitudinal tracking, edit accessibility, and scannability of day-level data across cycles.

Key design elements included:

Inline edit icons for quick, role-appropriate access

A toggle for “Edit this cycle only” vs. “Edit future cycles”

Visual indicators showing modified doses versus signed, finalized orders

A persistent sidebar summary displaying cycle duration, start date, and key notes

This layout allowed us to surface complexity without overwhelming the user, while also supporting real-time updates and high-risk clinical decision-making.

I followed Meditech’s evolving design system standards for spacing, typography, and component usage to ensure visual consistency and accessibility.

Beyond applying existing guidelines, I actively contributed to the system by helping shape:

Data table behaviors for clinical records

Pill tag components for labeling dose types, statuses, and scopes

Scroll and fixed-column patterns for timeline navigation

I also built on proven industry patterns for managing longitudinal timelines, filter logic, and responsive layout structures. These design contributions are now being reused across other product areas, reinforcing consistency and accelerating future development.

We compared paginated layouts with infinite scroll. Infinite scroll consistently tested better for user orientation and continuity, especially when reviewing multiple cycles across complex regimens.

User testing included:

Internal service and pharmacy teams

Oncology nurses and prescribing physicians

Feedback highlights:

“It feels like one place now.” — referring to the integration of editing, history, and future planning into a single view

“Love seeing more info in the first column — that’s what we actually care about.” — reinforcing the value of prioritizing key treatment details

Design adjustments based on feedback:

Pulled critical information leftward for faster scanning

Collapsed rarely used fields to reduce visual clutter

Introduced color-coding for cycle mismatches and skipped days

The design has gone through more than 10 major iterations and continues to evolve.

Recent improvements include:

Adding timeline markers to improve orientation

Testing a new edit modal flow for dose changes

Building a preview-before-save interaction to support safer decision-making

To continue improving flexibility and safety across the full treatment lifecycle, we plan to expand Regimen Management with several key enhancements:

Edit Timeline Tool
A visual drag-and-drop scheduler to adjust treatment days and sequence with ease

Integrated Labs and Non-Med Orders
Support for managing labs, diagnostics, and supportive care alongside medication orders

Alternating and Loading-Dose Cycles
Enhanced cycle logic to support more complex, protocol-driven regimens

Authorization Workflow Tracking
Visibility into insurance and authorization status tied directly to regimen updates

Billing Enhancements and Insurance Sync
Improved alignment between clinical documentation and billing requirements for accuracy and efficiency

These additions are grounded in ongoing user feedback and will further solidify Regimen Management as a scalable, end-to-end solution for oncology care.

Designed for real-world messiness

"No regimen goes perfectly. This project taught me how to design for complexity, variability, and the unexpected by creating a flexible, fail-safe experience for longitudinal care."

Connected the dots across roles

"UX means more than identifying conflicting needs. It means aligning them. I helped establish a shared language for change across disciplines."

Designed the system, not just the screen

"Every edit touches scheduling, pharmacy, billing, and documentation. My work bridged these invisible boundaries to ensure the system worked holistically and not just visually."

This case focuses on the clinical ordering experience within oncology treatment planning. My role as the lead designer involved untangling deeply technical logic and clinical safety constraints into a usable interface that supports accuracy and trust in high-risk medication workflows.

Project type
Medication ordering experience within oncology treatment plans

My role
UX designer responsible for end-to-end design including research, co-design sessions, usability testing, iterative refinement, and continued involvement through delivery and adoption

Stakeholders
This was a large, cross-functional effort involving product owners across applications, collaborating designers, front-end and back-end development teams, third-party vendors, internal service and implementation teams, standard content creators, standard tools teams, clinical informatics, pharmacists, oncologists, nurses, advanced practice providers, billing and accounts, scheduling, insurance and authorization teams, the accessibility team, and internal UX and development teams

Timeframe
2022 to 2025

This is the most safety-critical touch-point in the workflow where a provider commits to a plan. It has to be clear, fail-safe, and flexible enough to support highly complex regimens.

The challenge: Complexity without flexibility

Providers had no reliable way to order all components of a regimen together. If a patient required a unique variation, clinicians often had to manually assemble multiple treatment plans, introducing risk and slowing down care.

Regimens are inherently complex. They span multiple days, include different administration routes (IV, oral), rely on dependencies like fluids and additives, and often require patient-specific dose calculations.

Clinicians struggled with:

Adjusting doses for specific days or cycles

Recalculating dosing based on body surface area (BSA) without introducing errors

Substituting medications or fluids mid-treatment

Previewing outcomes before signing the orders

Making changes without having to rebuild the entire regimen

Key feedback from users:

“We just need a safe way to make changes without blowing up the entire plan.”
“Ordering wasn’t just too complex, it was brittle. One small change could force users to delete and rebuild the whole regimen. That’s not scalable or safe.”

To understand the full scope of the problem, I shadowed and interviewed:

Providers actively ordering multi-day regimens

Pharmacists responsible for building fluid combinations

Quality assurance reviewers validating live treatment cycles

Through this research, I identified several critical gaps:

Providers had to navigate multiple screens and applications to do their tasks.

No interface patterns to support dose variation by day or per patient

No support for substitutions or in-progress regimen edits

Unclear communication when doses were modified mid-cycle, leading to confusion and risk

Key insight

“It became clear that ordering wasn’t a single task. It was a fluid process. Clinicians needed the flexibility to respond to patient conditions and treatment delays without losing control of the regimen.”

Designing for real-world flexibility

I replaced rigid, static forms with modular, per-day order groupings that better reflected how clinicians think and work. Orders were grouped by:

Route (IV, oral, supportive medications)

Sequence (hydration, chemotherapy, recovery medications)

I introduced new UI states to support the dynamic nature of treatment:

"Edit this day only"

"Apply to all future cycles"

We also built in flexible logic to support:

Re-entering BSA (body surface area) values mid-treatment

Substituting fluid carriers without affecting the entire regimen

Implementing rescue dosing based on patient response

“I designed the architecture to reflect how regimens behave over time, not just what they contain on paper. Every interaction needed to respect the underlying treatment logic.”

Designing for clarity and control

To support safe and confident decision-making, we designed interface patterns that allowed users to:

Adjust doses per day using sliders or manual entry

Trigger real-time recalculations based on updated BSA values

Receive auto-suggested substitutions for equivalent fluids or supportive medications

I also introduced a “Summary Before Submit” screen to give users a final checkpoint. It included:

High-visibility dose and timing details

Inline warnings, such as incompatible IV string volumes

A clear day-by-day preview of all orders

“The core UX challenge wasn’t just showing data. It was helping users understand what would happen if they made a change. That required responsive, explanatory interaction design.”

Collaborating across teams to make it real

Our teams worked closely with developers, cross-application teams, oncologists, pharmacist, and ordering providers to:

Build safe defaults for fluid volume calculations

Support substitution logic without requiring users to restart the regimen

Handle BSA recalculations dynamically based on patient data

I partnered with pharmacists to:

Validate additive logic and timing after edits

Preserve proper administration alignment, such as ensuring fluids run before chemotherapy

In parallel, I collaborated with QA and product teams to:

Maintain order validation logic across cycles

Ensure consistency between what users saw and what the system filed

“I drove alignment across siloed teams to ensure the system reflected both clinical logic and EHR constraints. Great design in this space required invisible coordination.”

Testing with the people who live in this workflow

I conducted interactive prototype testing with:

High-volume adult oncology physicians

Pediatric clinicians managing highly variable BSA-based dosing

QA nurses responsible for validating real-world cycle edits

Focus scenarios included:

Editing the chemotherapy dose on cycle 3 only

Substituting fluids for a single day due to supply issues

Re-entering BSA after a patient’s weight changed

Key improvements after testing:

Made the screen show persistent highlights of recent changes

UI factors to more closely follow design conventions

Display the appropriate amount of details

Integrates preview into the begining stages of ordering

Added clear labeling to indicate the scope of changes (for example, “Cycle 2+”)

Streamlined the “Edit” interaction to reduce hesitation and errors

“Testing wasn’t just about task success. It was about building confidence. I paid attention to when people hesitated, not just when they clicked.”

Outcomes

Enabled dose adjustments without requiring users to reset or rebuild regimens

Reduced ordering time for common treatment plans by 15 percent

Allow edits to flow between applications

Allow for patient to be treated at any location without additional workarounds

Improved communication and alignment between prescribers and pharmacists

Product adoption

Rolled out as the standard preview experience across all oncology treatment plans

Established the foundation for upcoming acute-focused regimen enhancements

User feedback

“Now we can adapt treatment without starting over, that’s a huge win.”

Reflection

“By combining flexible editing with clear guardrails and real-time previews, we created a system that clinicians trust even under pressure.”

1. Ambiguity is an invitation to lead
There was no established guidance for how regimen preview during ordering should work across users and workflows. I stepped in to lead discovery, working directly with clinical subject matter experts and engineering partners. Together, we defined safety rules, mapped decision logic, and shaped new UI patterns to make the system reliable and trustworthy.

“There were no existing rules for how to do this safely. I worked with clinical SMEs and engineering to define them, both in logic and in pixels.”

2. Time is part of the workflow
This project challenged me to design not just for tasks, but across time. Cycles, substitutions, dose adjustments, and weight-based changes required me to think in systems. Designing across treatment timelines meant every interaction had to account for clinical progression, not just screen state.

“Designing across time such as cycles, delays, and substitutions pushed me to think in systems, not just screens.”

3. Great UX makes change feel safe
Clinicians know how to order medications. What they struggle with is editing without breaking the plan. I focused on progressive disclosure, scope labeling, undo patterns, and decision previews to reduce the fear of mistakes and give users confidence at every step.

“Most clinicians don’t need help placing orders. They need help making changes without breaking the plan. That is where UX can shine.”

4. Trust is the true success metric
Every decision in this project was about one thing: creating a sense of clarity and safety. From system architecture to button labeling, I asked: will the user trust what they see? Will they feel safe acting on it? I saw trust as both a design outcome and a clinical requirement.

“Every user interaction came down to one question. Can I trust what I’m seeing, and can I act on it safely?”

5. Outcomes depend on cross-functional alignment
This project taught me that even the best design ideas mean little without buy-in and coordination. I worked across product, dev, pharmacy, nursing, QA, and compliance to ensure the experience not only met user needs, but could be built, filed correctly, and scaled. Design was the connector across silos.

“Biggest impact was to drive alignment across siloed teams to ensure the system reflected both clinical logic and EHR constraints. Great design in this space required large amount of coordination.”