MDLIVE / E-TREATMENT / ASYNCHRONOUS URGENT CARE
Getting care without the visit
Designing MD Live’s asynchronous care product, so patients can get treated by answering a questionnaire instead of waiting for a visit.
HERO VISUAL / ADD IMAGE
E-Treatment intake flow on mobile
ROLE
<Lead Product Designer>
PLATFORMS
<Responsive web, iOS, Android>
TEAM
Product, Engineering, Clinical, Operations, Bright.md
TIMELINE
<# months>
THE OUTCOME / CARE THAT CONTINUES
A faster path to treatment. A more scalable model of care.
Patients answer a clinical questionnaire for provider review instead of scheduling a live visit. Eligible cases move into asynchronous care; those that need more are routed to the right care.
<#>
E-Treatment encounters in first <timeframe>
<#%>
of eligible patients who completed the questionnaire
<# min>
average time to submit, versus <# min> for a synchronous visit
MEASUREMENT PENDING / Replace the figures above with verified launch data.
THE TL;DR
Not every urgent care need needs a video call.
For many common, lower-acuity conditions, a well-designed questionnaire gives a provider everything needed to diagnose and treat, with no scheduling, no waiting, and no face time.
I led design for MDLIVE’s E-Treatment, an asynchronous urgent care product built on Bright.md’s clinical intake technology. Patients describe their chief complaint and learn right away whether it’s eligible for async care. If it is, they complete a questionnaire for provider review. If not, they’re routed to the right kind of care. The result is more convenient care for patients and a more scalable model for MDLIVE and its clients. <Add verified headline metric.>
01 / THE PROBLEM
Urgent care shouldn’t always require an appointment
Telehealth removed the drive to the clinic but kept the appointment. For a patient with a straightforward issue, that still means picking a time, waiting, and talking through something that could have been captured in a few well-designed questions.
It was also a capacity problem. Live visits are the most time-intensive way to deliver care. Every simple case that took a live slot was a slot unavailable for a patient who needed one.
Patients: convenience was capped by scheduling and wait times. Providers: live time went to cases that didn’t need a live conversation. The business: synchronous-only care limited how far, and how sustainably, the service could scale.
ADD COMPARISON DIAGRAM / Synchronous visit versus E-Treatment: patient steps and elapsed time
<Add a verified patient or stakeholder insight about getting treated without a live visit.>
PULL-QUOTE PLACEHOLDER / Replace with actual research evidence.
The goals
Patients: get treated for common conditions quickly, on their own schedule. Providers: review structured, complete cases efficiently and reserve live time for those who need it. Business: expand access with a sustainable care model for MDLIVE and its clients.
02 / UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM
Who should get a questionnaire in the first place?
The central question wasn’t “how do we build a questionnaire?” It was “how do we know which patients should get one?”
I partnered with Clinical and Product to understand which conditions were safe and effective to treat asynchronously, and with Bright.md to understand what the platform could and couldn’t do. <Add research methods, usability testing, competitive review, and participant counts.>
ADD ELIGIBILITY MAP / Conditions appropriate for async care versus those needing a visit
What we learned: <Add 1–2 sentences on an insight from testing or working within the platform that changed the design.>
03 / THREE DESIGN DECISIONS · 01
Start with the chief complaint, and let it decide the path
Patients don’t think in clinical categories. They think “my throat hurts.” But eligibility depends on what they say.
I designed the entry point around the chief complaint so the system could determine eligibility before asking patients to invest time in a questionnaire. <Add specifics: free text versus selection, how matching works, and testing that shaped the interaction.>
ADD ANNOTATED SCREEN / Chief complaint and how it determines the route
WHY IT MATTERED
Patients find out quickly whether E-Treatment fits, and nobody fills out a questionnaire they can’t use. <Add eligibility rate or drop-off at this step.>
DESIGN DECISION · 02
Design the “no” as carefully as the “yes”
Any eligibility check turns some patients away. If that moment feels like a dead end, the product fails exactly when patients need guidance most.
For ineligible complaints, I designed a clear, reassuring path to the right care, such as a synchronous visit, instead of an error state. <Confirm the actual destinations, messaging, and any safety or emergency guidance.>
ADD ANNOTATED FLOW / Ineligible path, messaging, and next steps
WHY IT MATTERED
Ineligibility became a handoff, not a failure. <Add the percentage of ineligible patients who continued into a synchronous visit.>
DESIGN DECISION · 03
Make a long questionnaire feel short
The questionnaire has to capture enough clinical detail for a provider to treat confidently. But patients are sick, on their phones, and one tap from leaving.
<Describe how you structured, sequenced, or simplified the questions: conditional logic, progress indicators, plain-language rewrites, or a review step. Keep only what’s true. If a different decision was more central, replace this block.>
ADD ANNOTATED SCREENS / Questionnaire and key interaction choices
WHY IT MATTERED
<Add completion rate, time to complete, or provider feedback on case quality.>
04 / DESIGNING WITHIN A PLATFORM
Their technology. An MDLIVE experience.
E-Treatment was built on Bright.md’s technology, which meant designing inside someone else’s system. <Describe how you worked with the platform’s capabilities and limits, what you customized or pushed back on, and how you kept the experience consistent with the rest of MDLIVE.>
ADD ANNOTATED COMPARISON / Platform defaults versus the MDLIVE experience
05 / SHIPPING IT
From chief complaint to submission.
I designed E-Treatment across <platforms> over <# months>, working with Product, Engineering, Clinical, and Bright.md to bring it to production.
<Add rollout approach, pilot clients, or phased launch details.>
ADD SCREENS / E-Treatment across the confirmed launch platforms
VIDEO / ADD RECORDING
A complete care request, without a live visit.
VIDEO OR PROTOTYPE / End-to-end flow from chief complaint to questionnaire submission.
06 / IMPACT
More convenient care. A sustainable way to scale.
METRICS TO VERIFY / Add a measurement window and source to each result.
<#>
E-Treatment encounters since launch
<#%>
questionnaire completion rate
<# min>
average time to submit, versus <# min> for a synchronous visit
OPTIONAL EVIDENCE / <Clients adopting the product> · <Improvement in provider capacity or cost-to-serve, if shareable> · <Patient satisfaction figure or verified quote>
THE BROADER VALUE
A care model that scales with patient needs.
Patients got a faster, easier path to treatment, and MDLIVE got a care model that scales: more patients served without proportionally more live-visit demand, and sustainable economics for the clients who offer it. <Pair this with a verified number or directional statement.>
07 / WHAT I’D DO DIFFERENTLY
A closer look back.
<Add 2–3 candid sentences about the hardest part and what you would change. Consider the trade-offs of working within a third-party platform, what you learned, and how that would shape your next iteration.>
Made with care. And a little mischief.