Project 01
Athenahealth
Pregnancy Lab Data Management, a tool empowering obstetricians to seamlessly record and track pregnancy-related lab data.
I led the end-to-end UX design process from research to interactive prototyping for a lab data entry experience tailored to obstetricians. Conducted competitive analysis, stakeholder interviews, and usability studies, and collaborated closely with product managers, engineers, and clinical informatics.
Info 02
Team
Summer 2023
UX Design Intern at Athenahealth
Team: 5 Developers, 1 Product Manager, 1 UX Researcher and Designer
My impact
Improved User Satisfaction: 80% of users reported being pleased with the redesigned workflow, citing improved clarity and ease of use.
Increased Efficiency: Reduced time spent by providers on lab data entry tasks by 20%, streamlining their clinical documentation process.
Successful MVP Launch: My MVP design was adopted by the team and successfully shipped, contributing directly to the product roadmap.
Project Overview
03
Problem
Obstertricians need to record results of a patient's laboratory data during pregnancy and they need a more efficient way to organize, visualize and find labs relevant to each OB visit.
This issue was identified through repeated customer complaints surveys
Goal
Determine how to best display the lab results to make the OB Labs table more useful and identify what other functionalities providers need.
Pain Points
Table is one long list that requires a lot of scrolling and clicks
Table is read-only – any actions that a provider needs to take must be done in another document
Heading and organization deviates from industry norms. The table is read-only
Old Labs Table
04
Understanding the Users
Research
Exploring Lab Categorization Options for Improved Pregnancy Care
During the first round of our research and design process, our primary objective was to explore various ways of categorizing the different pregnancy laboratories. I generated four distinct options for organizing these labs, which included categorization based on trimesters, lab status, or division into initial, genetic screening, ultrasound, and routine labs.
After drafting the designs I carried out 5 Interviews with Midwife, NP, Physicians – Combination of large practices, small practices
By stage
By trimester
By progress
Ultrasound seperation
“It is so difficult to navigate the Labs table. It takes me so long to find the lab that I want”
-OB clinician
During the research phase, I engaged with various stakeholders, including midwives, nurse practitioners, and physicians from both large and small practices. Each participant shared unique perspectives and concerns regarding the management of laboratory data in pregnancy care.
Through careful synthesis of their feedback, I was able to identify key themes and patterns that informed my design approach.
Research outcome
Misalignment of categories: Providers don't expect Ultrasound and Imaging to be listed under Labs.
Gestational age relevance: Providers prefer using gestational age over just the date.
Valuable sections: Initial Labs, Genetic Screening, and Standard Labs were considered the most useful.
Research Synthesis
Competitive Analysis
To identify gaps in the current Labs table experiences, I examined popular applications, specifically Dorsata, Cerner and eClinicalsWorks. This analysis helped me pinpoint potential areas for improvement and gather inspiration for enhancements.
No categories for labs
Visit based categories
No categories or sections
Key insight: No competitor had a better solution
Design
05
I gained valuable insights from the research participants and identified numerous opportunities to improve the design. However, due to time constraints, we couldn’t implement all the changes in one go. I prioritized the most impactful features for the MVP—those we were most confident about—and deferred the remaining improvements to a future iteration.
Goals for MVP design
Address main pain point of heading organization
Quick and easy to build
Build on existing designs
MVP features
Key Finding
Design Decision
Providers do not expect to see Ultrasound and Imaging falling under Labs .
Created separate section for Ultrasound/Imaging
Gestational age can sometimes be more useful than date
Reorganized table into these three distinct sections
MVP design
Most useful design included Initial labs , Genetic screening, Standard Labs sections under Labs
Impact
Added dedicated gestational age column next to dates
Reduced navigation errors by aligning with providers' mental models
Reduced scrolling time by grouping related information and Improved scan-ability of lab results
Eliminated need for mental calculations of gestational age allowing for faster assessment of test timing appropriateness
MVP Design Outcome
I passed my design to developers, and it was successfully shipped! Afterward, I continued to iterate on the design.
MVP Design
Design Handoff to Devs
After completing my design I went through a design handoff prcess with the developers which allowe dme to communicate and iterate on some of the feature
Consult with PM on team to confirm designs
Spec out designs and meet with developers to review designs and update designs with feedback
Review and approve
developer build prior to
launch
Design Iteration
06
My goals for this itertaion of design were to address the main 3 pain points by designing features that would help the pain points
Goals for iterations
Pain Point
Design feature to work on
Table is one long list that requires a lot of scrolling and clicks for providers to find what they need
Finding a way to show labs that trend over time
Table is read-only – any actions that a provider needs to take must be done in another document
Incorporating actions within the table.
Organization does not match standard industry patterns
Finding a way to presenting genetic screening.
During my second round of research, I aimed to better understand what additional features could improve the table for obstetricians. I conducted both qualitative and quantitative research across various roles, including Midwives, Nurse Practitioners (NPs), Physicians, and Medical Assistants (MAs). This research spanned a combination of large and small practices to gather comprehensive insights.
Research
Quantitative Research: Conducted Concept Validation Testing using Mid-Fi designs with a total of 20 responses.
Qualitative Research: Held 10 one-on-one interviews using Mid-Fi designs to gather deeper insights.
Exploring Design Options Through User Feedback
1. How can we help users quickly visualize lab result trends without cluttering the interface?
I designed 3 diffrent options for way to show trending labs. One with a graph, arrows and with a dropdows
Option A: Arrows
❌ Rejected
Feedback: Most users found the arrows distracting and hard to scan when comparing multiple labs. The repetitive symbols made the table feel visually noisy.
Conclusion: ❌ Dropped to improve table readability and reduce visual fatigue.
Option B: Dropdown
❌ Rejected
Feedback: Users understood the concept, but the extra click felt unnecessary for a quick-glance need. The development complexity also outweighed the benefit.
Conclusion: ❌ Rejected due to low impact on usability and higher implementation cost.
Option C: Graph Icon
✅ Selected
Feedback: Users immediately grasped this compact icon and were excited about how quickly they could view trends. It surfaced relevant data with minimal distraction.
Conclusion: ✅ Chosen for its balance of clarity, low dev cost, and strong user enthusiasm.
2. How might we display genetic screening results in a clear, navigable format?
Through my research, I learned that genetic screening can be further divided into subcategories. My goal in exploring design options was to identify the most efficient way to display this information, allowing obstetricians to navigate it with ease.
Option A: One section
✅ Selected
Feedback: Users overwhelmingly preferred this simple layout. It reduced scrolling and let them see all relevant genetic info at once, without confusion.
Conclusion: ✅ Selected for clarity and minimal cognitive effort.
Feedback: Some users understood the intent, but many felt the repeated buttons cluttered the table and made it harder to focus on the data.
Conclusion: ❌ Dropped due to reduced scannability and visual overload.
Option B: 2 sections under 2 different headings
❌ Rejected
Feedback: Users were split; some liked the grouping, but others felt it interrupted their flow. It added complexity without solving a real problem.
Conclusion: ❌ Rejected for being overly segmented and harder to scan.
Option C: 2 sections under the same heading
❌ Rejected
Feedback: This layout confused users with repeated section titles and unclear structure. It was dropped early due to negative first impressions.
Conclusion: ❌ Removed due to redundancy and poor clarity.
3. How might we enable clinicians to take quick actions on lab results directly from the table, minimizing clicks and context switching?
Obstetricians found it frustrating to leave the table view to input information. Research showed they wanted to complete key actions, like reviewing labs, adding notes, or marking results as declined, directly within the table. I tested three design approaches to solve this.
Option A: Take action button
❌ Rejected
dropdown action buttons
❌ Rejected
Feedback: Users found the dropdown familiar but not especially helpful. It didn’t improve efficiency for routine tasks and required extra clicks.
Conclusion: ❌ Not chosen due to low impact on speed and user flow.
checkbox with action buttons at top of table
❌ Rejected
Feedback: While conceptually clear, this approach felt too indirect for quick, single-item actions. It slowed down common workflows.
Conclusion: ❌ Rejected for adding friction to frequent interactions.
Key Insight:
✅ Users were more focused on what actions were available, not where they were placed.
Many were confused by vague terms like “Patient Declined” and unsure about “Add New Results” without supporting documentation.
Next Step:
Future iterations should prioritize clarifying and prioritizing lab actions, rather than refining their placement in the UI.
Additional Features for Speed and Clarity
To help clinicians quickly triage critical information, I added pill-shaped indicators for high-risk labs that appear even when the Labs section is collapsed.
✅ Result: Users could spot urgent results immediately, reducing time spent scanning.
High risk labs
I introduced a Status column with labels like “Reviewed” and “Ready to Review.” This boosted the table’s scannability and helped clinicians know what needed attention at a glance.
✅ Result: Helped streamline lab review workflows during rounds.
Status column
Users can now add or update notes directly in the table without navigating away.
✅ Result: Reduced data entry time and ensured better real-time documentation
Editable notes
Final Design
07
Final Prototype
Learnings and Takeaways
08
If I had more time I would :
Refine the sections further, including providing an option to differentiate between initial and standard lab results.
Conduct additional research to better understand the specific actions users want to take in the table, ensuring the interface meets their needs more effectively.
Explore new methods for highlighting lab results, such as using intuitive visual cues or interactive elements to draw attention to critical information without overwhelming the user, helping to improve efficiency in care.
Things I learned
Navigating complex problem spaces: I learned how to break down intricate issues into manageable components, ensuring that all aspects of the project are thoroughly considered and addressed.
Keeping the user’s needs at the core: I realized the importance of always prioritizing user needs in every design decision, ensuring the final product is intuitive, functional, and user-centered.
Effectively handing off designs to developers: I gained experience in communicating design intent clearly to developers, ensuring that the final product aligns with the original vision while accounting for technical feasibility and constraints.
