Clarifying ambiguity, aligning cross-functional teams, and designing a safe, intuitive solution for previewing complex oncology regimens.

One seemingly simple part of ordering a regimen, which is a large set of coordinated orders, is the ability to preview its contents without taking action.

At first glance, this might not seem important. But in practice, this step plays a critical role in clinician confidence and patient safety, especially in high-risk oncology workflows.

I led the design effort for this initiative within our ONC-certified EHR. My responsibilities included conducting user research, creating wireframes, running validation tests, and iterating based on feedback. The core challenge was to design a safe and intuitive preview experience that could support a wide range of users with different needs, all working together in real time.

The project lasted several months and brought together a broad group of stakeholders. These included internal product owners, implementation and service teams, standard content and tools groups, oncology IT, oncologists, pharmacists, nurses, compliance experts from government organizations like the NCI, private healthcare alliances such as the NCCN, and our internal accessibility team.

My initial research uncovered some uncomfortable truths.

Preview tools were either missing, misleading, or unsafe, depending on where in the system they appeared. Users in different roles such as oncologists, pharmacists, and nurses had varying expectations of what "Preview" should show, leading to confusion and miscommunication across teams.

There was no shared mental model. Each group relied on its own version of preview, making it difficult to collaborate or align on what was actually being ordered. Even worse, critical updates to the regimen were not reflected in real time, which only increased the risk of error.

This was not just a design gap. It was a safety and clarity gap.

Providers had no consistent, reliable way to validate high-risk orders before moving forward with treatment. As a result, this added clinical risk and slowed down decision-making at some of the most crucial moments in care.

How did we approach the ambiguity?

To understand the problem deeply, I began with stakeholder interviews across oncology, pharmacy, and nursing. These conversations helped uncover how each role thought about the concept of “Preview” and what they expected to see.

I led collaborative whiteboarding sessions to visualize mental models and map out both conflicting and overlapping expectations. Rather than jumping straight into mockups, I focused on clarifying what users actually needed preview to communicate.

Key research insights included:

“I want to see what’s in the dictionary and what the oncologist sees when they order it.”

“I need to know which meds are grouped together and which fluids are running at specific rates.”

These insights revealed major gaps in shared understanding and preview needs across teams. Taking the time to map these out gave us a clear foundation for the final design and aligned everyone on what preview needed to do and for whom.

I narrowed our research findings into a set of guiding principles to keep design decisions grounded and consistent. These principles helped us navigate key tradeoffs, such as balancing usability with accessibility.

Design principles:

Create one clear source of truth for all users

Adapt to the specific needs of each user group

Leverage existing tools to reduce development effort

Align with industry standards and accessibility guidelines

Present a clear information hierarchy

Avoid visual overload and cognitive fatigue

These principles became a touchstone throughout the design process and helped ensure the final solution was not only functional, but trusted by everyone using it.

Early failures: What didn’t work

Early versions of the design surfaced several issues that made the experience confusing, overwhelming, or outright unusable for key user groups.

No accessibility support, which excluded screen reader users and violated core design principles

Standard tools were too rigid and couldn’t adapt to complex oncology workflows

Layout constraints from proprietary code made content hard to structure clearly

The combination of accordions with radio buttons caused users to miss critical details

Grouping medications by cycle felt unintuitive and disjointed

Information was presented in a flat layout that made it difficult to separate medications from their associated details

Pre-expanded or collapsed views for active days only didn’t align with user expectations

Again, zero accessibility, which we could not ignore

Early versions also leaned too heavily on technical assumptions. Many users got lost in the complexity. Through testing and iteration, I shifted toward progressive disclosure and context-aware expansions, helping users focus only on what was relevant to them at the right time.

During usability sessions, we discovered that users did not realize the design was trying to support multiple workflows at once. Each role such as pharmacists, oncologists, and nurses viewed the experience through their own lens and had little concern for the needs of others.

This was a turning point. We realized the preview experience had to adapt based on who was using it and where they were in the workflow when they clicked "Preview."

Pharmacists, for example, needed clear breakdowns of fluid volumes and additive details. Oncologists preferred streamlined summaries that emphasized treatment intent by day. In response, I pivoted the design toward a layered information hierarchy that could flex based on role and context. This shift allowed us to serve different needs without overwhelming any one user group.

What changed after implementation

The new preview experience had a noticeable impact across teams:

Increased clinician confidence before signing

Fewer pharmacist clarification requests

Improved alignment between specialties

The redesigned preview is now a core part of the ordering workflow. It reduces friction, supports cross-functional coordination, and improves the safety of high-risk treatments. Other product teams have started exploring how this view could serve as a launch point for additional workflows.

What’s next

We are continuing to evolve the experience by refining the information hierarchy to support expanding data sets and adapting the preview workflow for pediatric oncology use cases.

Leading Through Ambiguity

There was no clear definition of what a regimen preview should include. Each user group—oncologists, pharmacists, nurses—had different needs and mental models.

I took the initiative to conduct foundational research and shape a shared vision for the feature. This meant leading discussions, surfacing tensions, and using UX as a bridge between perspectives.

Creating Alignment Across Roles

This project taught me how to create clarity across domains, even when stakeholders had different goals and vocabularies.

I learned to listen for nuance. For example, what a pharmacist calls "volume accuracy" may mean something very different to a nurse.

I held regular meetings with subject matter experts to ensure we were balancing needs fairly, without prioritizing one role over others. I became a translator between clinical languages, making sure the UI communicated clearly to everyone.

Balancing Detail with Usability

Early prototypes were dense. They technically displayed everything, but with little hierarchy. Users were overwhelmed, not informed.

I learned that being comprehensive is not the same as being clear.

I shifted toward progressive disclosure and contextual logic. Instead of removing content, I reorganized it so that users could focus on what mattered most at the right time.

Owning Outcomes, Not Just Designs

I stayed with this feature from early concept through usability testing, pilot implementation, and integration with other active development teams.

I worked closely with developers and clinical advisors to make sure the final output matched the design intent. After launch, I plan to gather feedback, support adoption, and help shape future improvements.

Ownership does not end at design handoff. It continues through outcomes, adoption, and iteration.

Reflection

This project pushed me beyond design execution and into systems thinking. I gained a deeper understanding of how clarity supports clinical safety, and I saw firsthand that trust is built not just through pixels, but through alignment, leadership, and the ability to navigate competing truths.

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 signed through real-time adjustments and auditing, I focused on creating a workflow that is safe, intuitive, and efficient, whether the regimen includes a single item or spans a complex, multi-phase treatment.

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."