Natera
Improving Provider Workflows through a Design System Audit
Improving Provider Workflows through a Design System Audit
My Role
Product Designer
Team
UX Designer (me), 2 Senior Designer, Engineer, PM, Providers, Lab Technicians
Stack
Figma, Figma Make, Miro
Company
Natera
Industry
Biotechnology
Timeline
2 weeks
This case study explores how a design system audit can improve clarity across provider-facing healthcare workflows. By reviewing tables, statuses, actions, error patterns, and handoff documentation, I identified where inconsistent UI decisions made clinical work harder to scan and interpret. The redesign translated those findings into clearer workflow patterns, more user-friendly copy, and implementation-ready guidance for product and engineering teams.
Standardized status language so providers could understand ownership, urgency, and next steps faster.
Redesigned table actions and error recovery patterns to make required actions easier to identify.
Documented reusable design system rules for accessibility, workflow patterns, and developer handoff.
Provider Portal Design System Audit
This audit reviewed a provider-facing healthcare portal across orders, specimens, results, and tasks. The goal was to understand how reusable components performed inside real clinical workflows, not just inside the component library.
Product Overview
This provider portal helps healthcare teams manage clinical testing workflows from order review to specimen tracking, result review, and issue resolution. Providers use the portal to understand which items need action, which items are being handled by the lab, which submissions have errors, and which results are ready for review.
Provider Portal Design System Audit
This audit reviewed a provider-facing healthcare portal across orders, specimens, results, and tasks. The goal was to understand how reusable components performed inside real clinical workflows, not just inside the component library.
Product Overview
This provider portal helps healthcare teams manage clinical testing workflows from order review to specimen tracking, result review, and issue resolution. Providers use the portal to understand which items need action, which items are being handled by the lab, which submissions have errors, and which results are ready for review.
Can a provider quickly understand what is happening, what needs attention, and what action to take next?
I mapped out the workflow.
My Role
Product Designer
Team
UX Designer (me), Senior Designer, Engineer, PM
Stack
Figma, Claude, Gemini, Miro, UX Thinking, Figma Make
Company
Natera
Industry
Biotechnology
Timeline
2 weeks
What I audited:
First, I have to understand the architecture.
The role of the design system
The design system defines how statuses, actions, tables, errors, alerts, and workflow patterns should behave across these areas. Without consistent standards, similar clinical decisions can be represented differently on each screen — making the portal harder to scan, understand, and hand off to engineering.
The audit focused on whether the design system made these workflows easier to scan, understand, and hand off. Each finding page shows a before state, the exact components that changed, and an updated design with a reusable system rule.
Orders: Action Hierarchy Was Inconsistent
Providers use work queue tables to decide what to do next across orders, specimens, results, and tasks. When the same kind of action appears as a button in one row, a text link in another, and an icon menu elsewhere, the user has to pause and reinterpret the interface instead of acting quickly.
Design system updates: