1 of 34

Medlaunch Concepts

Healthcare Portal Surveyor Tool

INFO 644: Usability Theory & Practice | Pratt Institute | Fall 2025

Amen Hailu • Arsh Kaushik • Mars Nevada • Shlok Belgamwar

USABILITY EVALUATION REPORT

2 of 34

Executive Summary

Submission & Entry Review

FINDING 3

Agenda Management

FINDING 2

Survey Creation

FINDING 1

THREE AREAS WITH THE MOST USABILITY ISSUES

8 moderated usability sessions with healthcare and design professionals evaluating 4 core tasks.

OUR APPROACH

Legacy system described as "impossible to track" and "tedious." Users abandon forms.

THE CHALLENGE

3 of 34

Methodology

4 of 34

1.

2.

3.

4.

File compliance finding about medication violations

Complete and Submit Entry Form

Publish survey, view progress, reschedule meetings

Navigate the Control Center

Schedule meetings and reviews across survey days

Build and Manage the Agenda

Create a 5-day audit report starting Dec 10, 2025

Create and Set Up a Survey

HOW WE DID IT

FOUR CORE TASKS EVALUATED

Task success rates (pass/fail), think-aloud verbal protocols, post-session confidence ratings (1-5).

DATA COLLECTION

8 participants, ages 25-64: project managers, product designers, healthcare attorneys, psychology PhDs. Remote Zoom sessions (60-75 min).

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Moderated Usability Testing with Think-Aloud (CTA) and Concurrent Probing (CP)

RESEARCH METHOD

5 of 34

Most Challenging Task: Task 2

Pass/Fail rates across 8 participants for each task

TASK COMPLETION RESULTS

0

4

8

Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Fail

Pass

Even participants with healthcare backgrounds struggled—domain expertise alone cannot compensate for interface usability issues.

Only 25% success rate—the most challenging task due to rigid column assignments and missing time context.

6 of 34

Users were unclear how to initiate and edit surveys and frequently got lost during the multi-step process.

Survey Creation

1

7 of 34

"Schedule Survey" vs "Create Survey"

CTA button shares the same color as the Historical Data table header, reducing its visual prominence.

COLOR HIERARCHY

CTA button nested inside two layers of boxes, making it feel less prominent despite being the largest button.

PLACEMENT

"Schedule Survey" implies managing deployment time, not creation. Users expected "Get Started" or "Create Survey."

TERMINOLOGY

ISSUES IDENTIFIED

Users desired a more explicit survey creation guided experience with clearer entry points.

INSIGHT

— Participant 1

"There's nothing that's kind of like leading me as to how to use the tool or what to do first."

— Participant 5

"I'm looking for a 'Start' button..."

FINDING 1 • PROBLEM A

The first problem we identified was the confusion between "Schedule Survey" and "Create Survey."��Participant 5 said they were "looking for a 'Start' button." Participant 1 noted that "there's nothing leading me as to how to use the tool or what to do first."��We identified three specific issues:��First, TERMINOLOGY: "Schedule Survey" implies managing deployment time of an existing survey, not creating a new one. Users expected "Get Started" or "Create Survey."��Second, PLACEMENT: The CTA button is nested inside two layers of boxes, making it feel less prominent even though it's the largest button on the page.��Third, COLOR HIERARCHY: The CTA button shares the same color as the Historical Data table header, reducing its visual prominence.��The insight here is that users desired a more explicit survey creation guided experience.

8 of 34

9 of 34

10 of 34

Form Entry Frustration

Users desired a form entry experience that aligns with common design standards across tools like Teams and Google Calendar.

INSIGHT

No pre-loaded options or ability to add users in-flow

USER MANAGEMENT

Unclear whether to enter number or include unit ("days")

INPUT LABELING

Non-standard format that confused users.

DATE PICKER

Unique name requirement only revealed on submission error

REQUIREMENTS

FORM DESIGN ISSUES

— Participant 6

"I click the team member field and it just says 'No options'. Is the database broken? It feels static..."

— Participant 5

"The UI here is bugging me. You have the word 'days' outside the box? As a user, do I type '3'? Or '3 days'?"

FINDING 1 • PROBLEM B

The second problem was form entry frustration.��Participant 5 was particularly vocal about the UI issues, saying "The UI here is bugging me. You have the word 'days' outside the box? As a user, do I type '3'? Or '3 days'?"��Participant 6 was confused by the team member field, saying "I click the team member field and it just says 'No options'. Is the database broken? It feels static."��We identified four form design issues:�- The unique name requirement is only revealed when users get an error on submission�- The date picker doesn't follow industry standards—users expect calendar inputs�- Input labeling is unclear about whether to enter a number or include the unit�- There are no pre-loaded user options and no way to add users within the flow��The insight: Users want a form entry experience that aligns with common design standards across tools like Microsoft Teams and Google Calendar.

11 of 34

12 of 34

13 of 34

Status Confusion

Users want clarity about status types, when they change, and flexibility to edit surveys after confirmation.

INSIGHT

Users didn't know to access progress via Control Center

NAVIGATION

Can't edit agendas of confirmed surveys—must delete and recreate

FLEXIBILITY

Unclear that agenda creation must happen before publishing

WORKFLOW CLARITY

"Confirm" sounds like validation, not launching a survey

TERMINOLOGY

STATUS WORKFLOW ISSUES

— Participant 7

"If I'm scheduling and maintaining multiple surveys, it will be so difficult to differentiate... which one is in draft, which one is currently going on, and which one is upcoming."

— Participant 5

"Is 'Confirm' the same as 'Start'? To me, 'Confirm' just means 'Yes, this data is correct.' It doesn't imply 'Action.'"

FINDING 1 • PROBLEM C

The third problem was status confusion.��Participant 5 asked "Is 'Confirm' the same as 'Start'? To me, 'Confirm' just means 'Yes, this data is correct.' It doesn't imply 'Action.'"��Participant 7 expressed concern about managing multiple surveys: "If I'm scheduling and maintaining multiple surveys, it will be so difficult to differentiate... which one is in draft, which one is currently going on, and which one is upcoming."��Key issues included:�- "Confirm" sounds like validation, not launching�- It was unclear that agenda editing must happen before confirming�- Users can't edit agendas of confirmed surveys—they must delete and recreate�- Users didn't know to access progress via the Control Center��The insight: Users want clarity about status types, when they change, and flexibility to edit surveys after confirmation.

14 of 34

15 of 34

Obscured timeline controls and inconsistent role labeling hide critical context

Agenda Management

2

16 of 34

"Even if there's a button that just says edit... I'm always looking for just ease" — P3

Users must navigate away to edit agenda items, disrupting the rapid pace of live survey rounds. 3 of 8 users noted this friction.

No In-Context Editing

"I can assign a person to the whole column but I don't know how I can assign a specific event to another person" — P8

System assumes static one-to-one relationship between surveyors and tracks. Can't reassign specific events when team members need to cover for each other. 5 of 8 users raised this issue.

Rigid Column-Level Assignments

"People might enjoy a weekly feature and being able to rank things in terms of importance - like starring a task" — P3

Missing week/month toggles force users to manually click through days to find high-priority items. 3 of 8 users compared this to Google Calendar's zoom-out capability.

Single-Day View Lacks Time Context

Agenda Usability Issues

FINDING 2 • PROBLEMS

We identified three problems with Agenda Management.��Problem A: The single-day view lacks temporal context. Missing week and month toggles force users to manually click through days to find high-priority items. 3 of 8 users specifically compared this limitation to Google Calendar's ability to zoom out. Participant 3 suggested "People might enjoy a weekly feature and being able to rank things in terms of importance - like starring a task."��Problem B: Rigid column-level assignments. The system assumes a static one-to-one relationship between surveyors and tracks. In reality, audit teams are dynamic—responsibilities shift hour by hour. 5 of 8 users raised this issue. Participant 8 said "I can assign a person to the whole column but I don't know how I can assign a specific event to another person."��Problem C: No in-context editing. Users must navigate away to edit agenda items, disrupting the rapid pace of live survey rounds. Participant 3 said "Even if there's a button that just says edit... I'm always looking for just ease."��These issues are critical because during audit milestones, agendas often change instantly based on new findings.

17 of 34

NO PRIORITY INDICATOR

Cannot flag high-risk items

HIDDEN TIME CONTEXT

Missing week/month view toggles

+

9:45 AM

4 PM

3 PM

2 PM

1 PM

12 PM

11 AM

10 AM

9 AM

8 AM

Physical Environment

Clinical

Generalist

Lisa Rodriguez

08/24/2025

Day One

Hospital Name | December 18-20, 2024

Survey name

Control Center > Survey Name > Dashboard

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

18 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

19 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

20 of 34

Implement click-to-edit interaction pattern allowing surveyors to modify time, title, or assignee directly within a modal overlay—critical for live audit scenarios.

Quick-Edit Modals

Enable drag-and-drop reassignment of tasks to different people or times, supporting dynamic survey workflows.

Draggable Task Cards

↔

Allow users to flag high-risk audit milestones. Visual differentiator remains visible when zooming out to weekly view.

Priority Star Indicators

Add Day/Week/Month toggles so surveyors can visualize the full 3-5 day survey and anticipate hard stops.

Multi-View Navigation

Agenda Management Improvements

FINDING 2 • RECOMMENDATIONS

For Agenda Management, we recommend four improvements.��First: Multi-View Navigation. Add Day, Week, and Month toggles so surveyors can visualize the full 3-5 day survey and anticipate hard stops.��Second: Priority Star Indicators. Allow users to flag high-risk audit milestones. This visual differentiator should remain visible when zooming out to the weekly view.��Third: Draggable Task Cards. Enable drag-and-drop reassignment of tasks to different people or times, supporting the dynamic nature of tracer methodology in auditing.��Fourth: Quick-Edit Modals. Implement a click-to-edit interaction pattern that allows surveyors to modify time, title, or assignee directly within a modal overlay. This is critical for live audit scenarios like morning briefings where the team must rapidly adjust the schedule.��These changes shift the interface from a simple daily list to a strategic planning tool.

21 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

22 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

23 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

24 of 34

Fig 2G

DRAGGABLE TASK CARDS

With this feature the task cards can quickly reassigned to a different person or a different time, according to the “Tracer” Methodology in Auditing.

DYNAMIC USER ROLE REASSIGNMENT

This feature enable quick and dynamic reassignment of a user to a different role depending on availability of auditors.

+

9:45 AM

Process Review

Patient Grievance Process

12:00 - 12:30 AM

Key Processes�

Tracer Methodology - Inpatient Care�

Patient Care Unit Visits

Operational Activities Review

10:00 - 11:30 AM

Key Processes�

Tracer Methodology - Inpatient Care�

Patient Care Unit Visits

Operational Activities Review

10:00 - 11:30 AM

Quality Operations�

Project Review�

Data Analysis and QC

Quality Management System

10:00 - 11:30 AM

Program Compliance Review

Covid-19

9:00 - 10:00 AM

Program Compliance Review

Operating Meeting

8:00 - 9:00 AM

4 PM

3 PM

2 PM

1 PM

12 PM

11 AM

10 AM

9 AM

8 AM

Physical Environment

Clinical

Generalist

Lisa Rodriguez

Month

Day

08/24/2025

Day One

Hospital Name | December 18-20, 2024

Survey name

Control Center > Survey Name > Dashboard

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

25 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

26 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

27 of 34

Duplicate tabs with similar information cause decision friction

Submission & Entry Review

FINDING

3

28 of 34

No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow and reorienting themselves.

MISSING NAVIGATION

Entry Review displays table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load. Scrolling increases with multiple entries.

INFORMATION OVERLOAD

"New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action. Users overlooked it.

UNCLEAR PRIMARY CTA

Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review" tabs—both seemed to serve the same purpose.

CONFUSING TABS

KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED

4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems
5 of 8 users confused by Entry Review structure
Some users abandoned the task entirely

IMPACT

— Participant 7

"Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."

Submission & Entry Review Issues

FINDING 3 • PROBLEMS

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

29 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

30 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

31 of 34

Merge "My Submissions" and "Entry Review" into a single "Submissions" tab with streamlined workflow.

Grey header (not blue) to distinguish from primary CTA color

ROW ACTIONS

CLEANER TABLE

Add inline edit/review actions per submission row

Enable bulk actions on multiple submissions at once

CHECKBOX SELECTION

Blue filled button repositioned with search/filters for visual balance

PROMINENT CTA

CONSOLIDATE TABS

Submission Workflow Improvements

FINDING 3 • RECOMMENDATIONS

For the Submission workflow, our primary recommendation is to consolidate tabs.��Merge "My Submissions" and "Entry Review" into a single "Submissions" tab with a streamlined workflow.��Additional improvements include:��First: A prominent CTA. Use a blue filled button repositioned alongside search and filters for visual balance.��Second: Checkbox selection. Enable bulk actions on multiple submissions at once.��Third: Row actions. Add inline edit and review actions per submission row.��Fourth: A cleaner table. Use a grey header instead of blue to distinguish from the primary CTA color.��These changes allow users to focus on the actual task they come to this page for, without overwhelming them with information overload. This should result in faster submission and review times.

32 of 34

Participant 7 summarized the core issue perfectly: "Submissions page and the entry review page, I feel like should be the same page. Those two things sound like the same thing to me."��The impact was significant:�- 4 of 8 users faced early interaction problems�- 5 of 8 users were confused by the Entry Review structure�- Some users abandoned the task entirely��We identified four key issues:��First: Confusing tabs. Users couldn't distinguish between "My Submissions" and "Entry Review"—both seemed to serve the same purpose.��Second: Hidden primary CTA. The "New Submission" button didn't communicate itself as the main action.��Third: Information overload. Entry Review displays a table and card simultaneously, creating cognitive load.��Fourth: Missing navigation. No back button prevented users from understanding the screen flow.

33 of 34

Navigation & Information Architecture

Critical functionality (Survey Tool) is buried at the bottom of navigation rather than being prominently featured
Primary navigation is poorly organized, with the Survey Tool below the fold where users cannot discover it without scrolling

False Affordances & Visual Hierarchy

Elements that appear clickable are not interactive, while elements that should be prominent are visually indistinguishable from static content

Missing Onboarding & Contextual Guidance

Users need explanatory copy, onboarding flows, and clear instructions to understand unfamiliar workflows
The overview doesn't actually provide an overview, users going in cold without training wouldn't be successful

Missing Search & Help Features

Users expressed a desire for a search function
No help or guidance features for new users or moments of confusion

Tablet & Mobile Optimization

Interface appears optimized for desktop rather than field use
Writing paragraphs while walking through a hospital is impractical

Tutorial & Learning Preferences

Users prefer step-by-step clickable tutorials over video

Floor Plans

Google Maps-style site map is less useful than building floor plans showing exactly where incidents occurred within the hospital

ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS

34 of 34

Thank You

INFO 644: Usability Theory & Practice | Pratt Institute | Fall 2025

Amen Hailu • Arsh Kaushik • Mars Nevada • Shlok Belgamwar

Questions?