OMRON - Patient monitoring
Safer monitoring and handover flows after the platform failed its medication titration risk assessment.
- UI design
- Co-design
- Usability testing
- Interviews
Summary
OMRON brought me in to co-design a safer monitoring platform.
Workshop sketches fed straight into wireframes
Prototype aligned the team before build
Four critical issues found in usability testing
Product goal
Make hypertension monitoring and medication titration safe enough to pass clinical risk assessments.
User problem
Assigning medication titration carried real medical risk. A single mistake could put a patient on the wrong medication and harm their health.
Team
I co-designed with OMRON's product team, a service designer, a product manager, and a consultant doctor who gave us the clinical expertise.
What I owned
I ran the co-design workshops and turned our sketches into wireframes and a clickable prototype. Then I scripted and moderated the usability tests that shaped the final flows.
Methods & skills
Rough share of my effort- Interviews15%
- Co-design workshops25%
- Wireframing20%
- Prototyping20%
- Usability testing20%
Challenge
Patient safety depended on getting medication plans to the right person.
The hypertension platform failed a risk assessment because practitioners could assign the wrong medication plan to the wrong patient.
Those errors came from missing records, stale monitoring data, and unclear handovers between practitioners. Together the gaps made routine titration genuinely unsafe.
My role
The product team and I shaped the direction together. Here is what I led after.
What we did together
- The product team and I co-designed the assignment and monitoring flows in workshops we ran together.
- The product team scoped the risk-assessment fix and joined usability sessions to hear findings firsthand.
What I owned
- We ran the co-design workshops and turned our sketches into wireframes, keeping role-specific assignment logic visible early.
- We built a clickable prototype from workshop outputs so the team could test assign-and-handover flows before development.
- We scripted usability sessions, moderated the tests, and wrote the findings report.
Persona boards from research helped us design for five different roles. Then we turned that into a prototype the team could test.
Timeline
Where I led work vs where the wider team ran discovery before I joined.
Six weeks from risk assessment through to handoff. I led the early testing and everything from co-design onward, while the wider team ran practitioner discovery interviews.
My involvementWithout my involvement
Wk 1
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
Wk 5
Wk 6
Wk 7
Wk 8
Wk 9
Wk 10
Risk assessmentRisk assessmentRecruitmentStudy prepModerated sessionsFindings report
Recruitment
RecruitmentLined up practitioners to test the at-risk flows.Study prep
Study prepWrote the test script and scenarios for the sessions.Moderated sessions
Moderated sessionsRan moderated sessions on the medication assignment flow.Findings report
Findings reportWrote up the critical safety issues we found.
DiscoveryDiscoveryInterview prepRecruitmentPractitioner interviewsResearch reportReading research reports
Interview prep
Interview prepWider team prepared the discovery interview guide.Recruitment
RecruitmentWider team recruited practitioners for discovery.Practitioner interviews
Practitioner interviewsWider team interviewed practitioners about their workflows.Research report
Research reportWider team wrote up the discovery findings.Reading research reports
Reading research reportsI read their reports to ground my design work.
Co-designCo-designWorkshop prepRunning the workshopsPrototyping
Workshop prep
Workshop prepPlanned the activities and materials for the workshops.Running the workshops
Running the workshopsFacilitated the team sketching the safer flows.Prototyping
PrototypingTurned workshop sketches into a clickable prototype.
Usability testingUsability testingRecruitmentStudy prepModerated sessionsFindings reportPrototype iteration
Recruitment
RecruitmentRecruited practitioners for the validation round.Study prep
Study prepScripted tasks to test the revised flows.Moderated sessions
Moderated sessionsModerated testing on the updated prototype.Findings report
Findings reportDocumented the fixes needed before handoff.Prototype iteration
Prototype iterationRefined the prototype against test feedback.
Co-design
Grounded in practitioner research, the product team and I shaped the direction in workshops.
We interviewed five user groups on how they recruit, monitor, and hand off patients.
Persona boards fed straight into wireframes, not a shelved report.
Our co-design sketches became wireframes and a clickable prototype for testing.
Build & test
From workshop sketches to prototype, then moderated usability testing.
Wireframes kept clinical roles and handover logic visible before polish.
Wireframes
Action cards, dashboard, and assignment logic.
Interactive prototype
Assign practitioners, review alerts, and open patient records.
Usability findings
Practitioner research kept us grounded. We were not designing assignment logic from guesses alone.
Medical records dependency
Practitioners could not safely assign titration plans without full clinical records. We flagged it in testing as a blocker before handoff.
Role-specific workflows
Each practitioner group worked differently, so we avoided a one-size-fits-all flow and tested versions that matched each role.
Stale monitoring data
Dashboards did not always show live readings, so practitioners lost confidence making titration decisions. We documented it for the product team.
Inflexible handover
Transferring patients between practitioners needed clearer notes. After testing showed silent handovers created risk, we added a mandatory reason field.
Solution
From monitoring dashboard to completed action.
User flow
| Stage | User action | Design response |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Monitoring dashboard | Review assigned patients and filter by alert or referral status. | Traffic-light alerts and “assigned to me” filters help practitioners prioritise quickly. |
| 2. Open action card | Select a patient alert and review clinical context. | Action cards surface the task, urgency, and history needed to decide next steps. |
| 3. Assign or reassign | Transfer a patient when escalation is needed. | Mandatory reason fields and clearer ownership reduce silent handovers. |
| 4. Complete action | Confirm the titration step and return to the queue. | Status tags and completion states show what still needs attention. |
Assign patient with mandatory handover
Reassigning a patient requires a reason, reducing silent transfers between practitioners.
Action card detail
Action cards surface the task, status, and next steps for each patient alert.
Limitations
Working within a fixed scope and without full design-system integration.
- Scope lacked design system and library consideration
- Practical and real-life use of the assignment feature was not tested in live clinical systems
- Usability sessions used a prototype, so we could not fully test behaviour with real records and integrations
Key takeaways
What clinical workflow design reinforced, and what I'd carry into the next regulated health product.
- Healthcare workflows cannot be designed from guesses. Roles, responsibilities, and escalation paths vary more than generic SaaS patterns allow.
- Small usability issues create big clinical risk. Extra clicks, hidden validation, or missing context directly affect patient safety.
- Bringing design system thinking in earlier would have reduced rework when scaling action-card patterns across the platform.
Open to new opportunities
I'm actively looking for UX/UI design roles. If my work resonates, I'd love to hear from you.