Customising the way healthcare settings can record their vaccinations.
During alpha and beta, we’ve learned users, like Clinic Managers, organise their teams in different ways to deliver vaccinations.
Typically, most healthcare settings appoint vaccinators to check in patients, screen and vaccinate them, and record data as they go along.
However, we’ve discovered that some settings do things differently to support the flow of patients through their clinics based on their size, scale and specific ways of working.
For example, some large vaccination centres set up check-in desks and different COVID-19 and Flu vaccination stations to move patients from one to another. In contrast, GP practices check in patients at the front desk, moving them to a waiting area before a doctor or nurse sees them.
Through prototyping, we explored how we could offer all settings the flexibility to customise how they record vaccination data.
The first round of testing
The settings home screen directs users to workflows.
The workflow home screen prompts users to create a new workflow or edit an existing one.
The ‘create new workflow’ screen prompts users to select options aligning with their working practices.
What we learned
Communicating the purpose of workflows and their benefits.
Workflows are a new capability current point-of-care systems do not offer. Despite explaining what workflows could provide users at the start of our testing sessions, they needed further help within the interface to grasp the concept.
“It’s hard to see how setting up this workflow would benefit us.”
Due to this, users felt our prototypes should explain how workflows impact how their teams record vaccinations and the benefits of using one workflow over another.
“I want to know the consequences of my choices.”
Communicating what happens if a workflow is not selected
Users correctly assumed that if they didn’t create a workflow, RAVS would operate similarly to current point-of-care systems but felt the design should communicate this.
“If I do not choose a workflow, I would expect the system to work as it does now.“
Gathering feedback to iterate our designs
Users suggested value in scheduling a workflow for a specific day, days, or times of the week.
They also queried the relationship between workflows and different prescribing methods involving one or more staff and the relationship between a workflow and a clinic’s site or location, highlighting a need for us to consider workflows as part of the system setup.
The second round of testing
Announcing a new feature
Based on our findings in our first round of testing, we iterated our workflow home screen prototype to include a new feature announcement, including a clear value proposition to encourage users to use workflows. We will use this pattern for any new features (or capabilities) we introduce.
Presenting choices: less is more
To reduce the mental effort in making decisions, we presented users with four workflow options based on the most common ways settings operate to vaccinate patients. Each option communicated the benefits and suitability of choosing one over the other.
‘It’s very clear what the screen is setting out what I need to do.”’
As a result, users understood the concept of workflows and what they could allow them to do.
Iterated workflow home screen.
Creating a step-by-step process
We iterated the ‘create new workflow screen’ into a step-by-step design to reveal the available choices, including the ability to schedule workflows and the consequences of making a choice one step at a time.
We also featured a confirmation panel that displayed the user’s selections during each step.
As a result, users could easily digest the content, carefully consider and select the options presented, and understand the workflow’s value. This approach contrasts with our initial design, which showed lots of information on one screen.
However, users wanted clarification about how workflows interacted with appointments in the system and the impact of making specific selections on the user interface.
1. Check-in and/ or check eligibility.
2. Record data.
3. Choose vaccines and/ or split workflow.
4. Choose days.
Usability score and summary
Using a seven-point rating scale,users scored our iterated workflow approach 5 out of 7 (slightly confident), higher than our initial testing score of 3.75 (slightly unsure).
Overall, users found the workflow home screen helpful and understood what to do. However, more work exists for us to show how the user’s selections impact the interface their teams or end-users will ultimately interact with.
‘'I’d choose (a workflow) depending on how my organisation is set up.‘
We also need to consider how appointments and workflows connect. Once we action these changes, we expect the user’s confidence level in using this new feature to increase.
“It’s not clear how the workflow impacts our end users. What difference does this make to the system?”