Thank you!
Your submission has been received!
Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Years at PatientPop and through the merger into Tebra, designing for practices and for the patients trying to reach them. Clinical workflows punish clever interfaces: people are busy, interrupted, and will route around anything that slows them down.
Clinicians won't use the thing they're required to use. Patient-facing flows leak at intake or booking. Compliance requirements arrived late and now sit awkwardly on top of a design that didn't anticipate them. Or the buyer is a practice manager and the user is a doctor with four minutes between appointments.
I spent several years on PatientPop, later Tebra, building software for independent medical practices. The lesson that transfers everywhere: clinical users have less tolerance for friction than almost any other group, because the cost of a slow interface is measured in patients waiting.
So the work starts with the constraint, not the interface. Where in the day does this actually get used, on what device, with how many interruptions, and what happens when it's wrong. Regulatory requirements get designed into the flow rather than bolted on, because retrofitting consent and privacy is where healthtech products usually get ugly.
The buyer/user split is sharper here than in most B2B. A practice owner buying for their staff has different priorities from the staff, and pretending otherwise loses you the renewal.
Typically a focused engagement of four to eight weeks, or embedded work across a quarter. The regulated parts benefit from having your compliance people in the room early.
Do you know the regulatory side?
Well enough to design around it and to know when to ask. I'm not a compliance advisor, and design decisions get checked with people who are.
Have you worked with clinical users directly?
Yes — research with practice staff and clinicians was a regular part of the PatientPop and Tebra work.