A visual could not fix a summary panel that was never designed for the people using it.

Reframe, stop the harm, then rebuild

The work split into three movements. A prioritisation round that turned into a reframe, a fast intervention to stop client data going missing while the redesign ran, then the structural work that produced the new panel.

Where the summary panel sits

The core health software is a five panel workspace for supervising asynchronous clinical protocols. Panel 02, the summary panel, was built to give the primary clinical overview. It was live across every team, yet field observation showed its data did not support real time triage.

Deciding what the visual should show

The ask was a visual summary layered on the existing panel. To decide what it should surface, I narrowed from the 42 care teams to the 6 where client details were going missing most often, then ran two things side by side with them. Five second tests, to see which data each role recalled first from the current panel. And situational client cases, to see what a coach and a doctor each reached for first under real conditions. The output was meant to be a priority list for the visual.

They had left the panel behind

While running those sessions I noticed something the brief had not accounted for. Each clinician kept a physical diary covering all of their clients, filled in by hand. The entries were inconsistent and often incomplete. The same client details went missing again and again. The care team was not supplementing the summary panel. They had stopped opening it.

A visualisation of the client data on top of a summary panel nobody opened would change nothing. The summary panel had never matched the way clinicians work, so it needed rebuilding from the data up.

Those two positions are the tension the whole architecture had to resolve. Separate dashboards would have split a shared client into two partial views. The alternative was one panel that opens on what both roles share, then lets each role go deeper into what only they need.

The constraint that forced a stricter cut

Excel could hold every category the heads wanted. The screen could not. Designing the panel meant reducing that superset to what a clinician can actually read under load. I wanted that cut made on evidence rather than taste.

How I narrowed it

One panel, opening on what both roles share

The structure resolves the tension between the two roles without splitting the client in two. Tier one carries the shared core, what both a coach and a doctor need in the first seconds. Tier two holds everything else behind search and accordions, so each role goes deeper into what only they need. Tier three keeps the archive out of the way. This hierarchy was my deliverable. The UX team built the low fidelity wireframe from it.

Two questions decided whether the structure worked

First click testing

Doctors found what they needed almost every time. Coaches sat lower, which tracks with the sorting rounds: their data spreads across more of tier two, so more of their retrieval depends on the grouping labels rather than on tier one.

Scenario testing

For both roles the case summary covered what was needed in most cases. The exceptions are the useful finding, because they are consistent and they name exactly where tier one stops being enough.

Both lists point the same way. Tier one holds for the standard case. The exceptions are clients carrying more history or more context than a summary can reasonably compress. That is an argument for how tier two is reached rather than for putting more on the surface.

The redesign, side by side with what it replaced

The three moments came straight from the sessions: what clinicians opened first, what they searched for mid conversation and what they reached for only in a full review. The wireframe below is the UX team's build of the hierarchy I specified.

Before · one endless pane

The live panel: identity fields up top, then an undifferentiated scroll of topic snippets. Every retrieval was a hunt.

After · the three tier panel

Client dataBK

Tier 1 · Case summary

Client name, age, genderBarbie Kong, 25, F

Next actionAsk her not to eat pastries

Medical status, phase and dayS2, V1, D26

Progression score4

Diagnosed conditionsSerotonin deficiency, fat loss

Active medical concernsGERD, low energy

Current medications5 HTP 100mg, Antoxid HC

Dietary preferenceNon vegetarian

Country, timezoneIndia, GMT+5:30

Tier 2 · Further details

Type the data you are looking for

Client's initial data ⌃

Height 167 cm

Start weight 90 kg

Target weight 50 kg

Work schedule Mon to Sat, 11am to 7pm. Unpredictable

Food and diet ⌄

Active patient management ⌄

Surveillance data ⌄

Client status and workflow ⌄

Tier 3 · Deep archives

Reports, lab timelines, revision history ⌄

The redesigned panel: a five second case summary, searchable accordion detail and archives kept out of the way.

Friction from missing client data, before and after

The measure is the friction the gaps were causing. Each team lead flagged, per client, where missing data or context created friction at the point of care. The same 6 teams and the same 282 clients were measured in March, when those clients sat in phases V1 to V3. They were measured again in May, once capture had been running and the clients had moved to V3 to V6.

Roughly two friction points per client became one. Part of that fall reflects clients maturing into later phases with fuller records, so I read this as the capture change plus natural maturation, with capture as the lever the team could actually pull.

What this study can and cannot claim

The work sits inside clear bounds. It ran in one organisation across 6 of 42 care teams, so it describes how Amura operates rather than clinical tooling in general. The validation samples are small, 12 coaches and 6 doctors, so the first click and scenario results are directional rather than precise. The friction measure is a team lead judgement, applied consistently within the study but not an external standard. And the before and after follows the same clients across program phases, so maturation shares credit with the capture change.

The clean next test is a control, a comparable cohort moving V1 to V3 through V3 to V6 without the tracking sheet, which would isolate the effect. Alongside that, the panel needs measuring in live use once it ships, to confirm the hierarchy holds when it stops being new.