Transforming Healthcare Compliance Through User-Centered Design

Problem 1A: Scheduling vs Creating Confusion

Users were unsure how to create a survey, despite the presence of a "Schedule Survey" button. "Scheduling" created confusion as it's generally understood as managing deployment time rather than creation. The button was inside two layers of boxes, making it less prominent. It's also the same color as the Historical Data table header.

Problem 1B: Form Entry Frustration

Users relied on learned behaviors from other tools, resulting in frustration when designs didn't conform to expectations.

The tool isn't connected to a database like Microsoft Teams or Pulse, which allows pre-loaded teammate selection.

Problem 1C: Status Confusion

Users were confused about status terminology and what options meant. They expected status changes that didn't happen (e.g., updating a survey resulted in a draft, not an updated live survey).

Problem 2A: Missing Temporal Context

Surveyors are managing a complex 3-5 day narrative where finding specific survey milestones currently requires memorization rather than visual recognition. The current single-day constraint forces users to manually click through days to find high-priority items, increasing cognitive load and the risk of missing a critical "Hard Stop." 3 out of 8 users specifically compared this limitation to standard tools (like Google Calendar) that allow "zooming out" to assess the week's workload at a glance.

Problem 2B: Rigid Column Assignments

The system incorrectly assumes a static, one-to-one relationship between a surveyor and a track (e.g., "Lisa" is always the Generalist). In reality, audit teams act as a dynamic mesh where responsibilities shift hour by hour. If a surveyor gets delayed in one area, another team member must step in to cover specific events. The current UI "locks" the column, making this mandatory compliance flexibility impossible without changing the entire day's assignment. This was pointed out by 5 out of 8 users.

Problem 2C: No Inline Editing

The current workflow breaks the user's mental model of direct manipulation as implied by 3 out of 8 users. When a user spots an error during a high-pressure briefing (e.g., a "Morning Team Meeting"), the system forces a context switch—navigating away to a separate form rather than allowing immediate correction. This friction discourages users from keeping the schedule up to date, as they fear losing their place or wasting time during critical "live" discussions.

Problem 3A: Confusing Tabs & Poor CTA Communication

Users (Surveyors) experienced confusion during their initial interaction with the My Submissions page. Their expectation was to quickly submit entries from the surveys they had conducted, but the interface increased their interaction cost and reduced their productivity. Most users were unable to distinguish between My Submissions and Entry Review, questioned the complexity of the flow, and needed initial guidance to understand the purpose and actions within each tab.

They also expected to navigate back to understand the screen flow better but couldn't, due to the absence of a back button. Additionally, many users overlooked the primary CTA because it did not effectively communicate itself as the main action.

Problem 3B: Unclear Entry Review Structure

Under the 'Entry Review' tab, users were unable to clearly understand what was happening because two separate information sections—a table and a card—were displayed simultaneously. This created confusion and increased their cognitive load, leading some users to abandon the task altogether, while others needed external assistance to navigate the page.