Telus Health · Digital health
Care Guides started as a request to refresh the patient-facing interface and improve engagement. Before redesigning the screens, I looked at how aftercare was created, issued and used across the service. That revealed a much bigger opportunity.
I led the design of a scalable system connecting clinical content writers, clinicians and patients. It allowed teams to create Care Guides from reusable modules, issue relevant guidance during a consultation and understand what patients did afterwards.
Role
Product designer
Scope
Product discovery, user research, product strategy, service mapping, UX/UI design, prototyping and prioritisation
Team
1 x product manager, 1 x clinical content writer, 1 x clinician, 8 x engineers
Timeline
6 months
Platform
iOS, Android and Responsive web
The work made aftercare easier to create, more useful for patients and more measurable for the business.
+45%
Qualified return visits to Care Guides
More patients returned to their guidance and remained engaged for at least 10 seconds.
~60%
Care Guide users completed an activity
Of the patients who opened a Care Guide, 60% marked or completed a prompt, checklist or other activity.
One modular system
Reusable across many Care Guides
Clinical teams could combine the same building blocks across different forms of care instead of treating every guide as a separate product build.
A qualified return visit was defined as a patient returning to a Care Guide and remaining there for at least 10 seconds.
After a consultation, clinicians could send patients Care Guides containing relevant advice, treatment information and next steps. The content was useful, but the experience was largely built around long-form articles.
The request was to refresh the interface and increase patient engagement. It would have been easy to improve the visual hierarchy, introduce a few new components and call the work complete. I wanted to understand why engagement was low before deciding what the interface needed.
I followed a Care Guide through the whole service. I looked at how clinical writers created the content, how clinicians found and issued it, and what patients could do after receiving it.
Clinical content writers were constrained
Static article templates were suited to publishing information, but not to creating more interactive or personalised forms of aftercare.
Clinicians carried unnecessary effort
Clinicians had to find and send an appropriate guide themselves while also managing the demands of a consultation.
Patients received information, but little support to act
Useful next steps were buried inside long articles. Reading was visible only as a page view, while actions such as reflection, completing an exercise or following a routine were difficult to distinguish and measure.
Improving the patient interface alone would leave all three problems in place.
The pivotal insight was that Care Guides were being treated as individual pieces of content when they needed to work as part of a connected care system.
Patients did not experience authoring, clinical delivery and aftercare as separate workflows. The quality of each step affected the next. If writers could not create useful interactions, clinicians had fewer meaningful guides to issue. If a guide presented everything as an article, patients had little reason to return or take action. If those actions were not measurable, the team could not learn which parts of aftercare were genuinely helping.
This shifted the project away from a visual refresh and towards a broader question:
How might we make aftercare more useful, actionable and scalable?
Mapping the ecosystem revealed more opportunities than we could reasonably deliver in one release. The challenge was to keep the value of the wider vision without turning the project into an unmanageable redesign.
I worked with clinical writers to understand which interactions would make guides more useful, then with engineering to assess feasibility, reuse and implementation effort. We prioritised capabilities that could support several clinical needs rather than highly specialised components that worked for only one guide.
1
Build reusable capabilities
Create flexible modules that clinical teams could combine in different ways.
2
Turn information into action
Help patients do something with the guidance they received, not simply read it once.
3
Measure meaningful behaviour
Capture return visits and activity engagement rather than relying on initial opens alone.
The project involved more than designing patient screens. I worked across Product, Engineering and Clinical teams to make the wider system visible, align people around the opportunity and turn it into something we could deliver.
Clinical writers helped us understand where static templates limited the guidance they wanted to provide. Clinicians helped protect the role of professional judgement. Engineers helped identify patterns we could reuse across web, iOS and Android. Product helped connect the work to measurable engagement and a phased roadmap.
My role was to hold those perspectives together. I moved between the service-level view and detailed interaction design, making sure the first release was achievable without losing the logic of the wider system.
This was also why challenging the original brief mattered. A polished article template could have improved the surface while leaving the creation, delivery and measurement problems untouched.
Designing each Care Guide as a bespoke experience would have created a growing dependency on Product and Engineering. It also would have made it difficult to maintain consistency as the library expanded.
I designed a modular content system instead. Each module had a clear purpose for the patient but was flexible enough to support different clinical topics.
Examples included:
Written content for explanations, advice and treatment information
Images, video and audio for content better suited to another format
Prompts that could support reflection or journalling
Checklists for routines, exercises or treatment steps
Activities that patients could mark as complete
The value came from reuse. An audio module could provide an explanation in one guide and a guided meditation in another. A prompt could capture a wellbeing reflection or help someone prepare for a follow-up appointment. A checklist could support medication, rehabilitation or a daily routine.
Clinical writers gained more expressive tools without needing Engineering to build each Care Guide from scratch. Patients also benefited from familiar patterns across different types of care.
This was the core system decision. We were no longer creating a collection of pages. We were creating reusable capabilities that could support many care experiences.
2. Helping clinical teams create and issue useful aftercare
The system needed to work for the people responsible for delivering care, not only the patients receiving it.
For clinical content writers, the modular structure created a clearer relationship between the guidance they authored and the actions a patient could take. They could combine information, media and activities according to the purpose of the guide while working within consistent patterns.
Clinicians still needed to apply their judgement when deciding what was relevant to an individual patient. The issuing experience therefore had to make suitable guidance easier to find and review without turning aftercare into an automatic recommendation.
This distinction became particularly important when exploring how the system might scale further.
Exploring AI with clinical oversight
As part of the longer-term product direction, I explored how AI could help propose suitable content or activities for a patient’s Care Plan. The clinician would remain responsible for reviewing, editing and approving the recommendation before anything was issued.
The aim was not to automate clinical decision-making. It was to reduce repetitive work while preserving professional judgement and a clear point of accountability. This created a safer boundary for AI: suggest and organise, but let the clinician decide.
This AI-assisted workflow was a future concept rather than part of the measured first release. Keeping that distinction clear allowed us to explore a more ambitious direction without overstating what had shipped.
Long-form content was useful when a topic needed explanation, but it gave every piece of information the same visual weight. An important action could easily disappear between paragraphs.
The redesigned Care Guide separated explanation from participation. Content still provided the clinical context, while activities, prompts, checklists and media became recognisable parts of the experience. Patients could understand what they were being asked to do and return to unfinished activities later.
I also considered how patients would rediscover their guidance after the consultation. The wider direction considered entry points from Home, a dedicated Care Guides area and relevant email or push reminders. Whichever route patients used, it needed to return them to the same source of truth.
This moved Care Guides away from being something a patient opened once after a consultation. They became an ongoing part of the care experience, with clear reasons to return.
4. Measuring whether guidance led to action
An open did not tell us whether a patient found a guide useful. Someone could land on the page, leave immediately and still appear engaged in a basic dashboard.
We defined a qualified return visit as a patient coming back to a Care Guide and remaining for at least 10 seconds. It was not a perfect measure of value, but it gave us a stronger signal than page views alone.
The modular system created more specific behavioural signals inside the experience. We could see whether patients interacted with media, marked a checklist item, completed an activity or engaged with a prompt.
This made previously invisible behaviour measurable. It also gave the team a foundation for learning which types of modules worked best for different forms of aftercare.
Ideally, I would have defined module-level measurement even earlier. Doing so would have created a stronger baseline for comparing individual Care Guides and prioritising future improvements.
The redesigned Care Guides experience produced stronger signs of meaningful engagement.
The figures matter, but the broader result was the shift from publishing static information to supporting ongoing patient action. Care Guides became easier to create, easier to extend and more useful to measure.
+45% qualified return visits
More patients returned to a Care Guide and remained for at least 10 seconds.
60% of patients marked or completed an activity
The new modules showed that patients were doing more than opening and reading the guidance.
A scalable system for future Care Guides
Reusable modules gave clinical teams a way to create richer forms of aftercare without treating every new guide as a separate product build.
The most important decision was made before I designed the new interface. By questioning the brief and looking at the whole service, I found that the patient UI was only one part of the problem.
That changed the quality of the solution. Instead of producing a cleaner article, we created a flexible system connecting clinical knowledge, professional judgement and patient action.
It also reinforced something I now look for in complex product work: when several teams are compensating for the same limitation, the opportunity is often a system problem rather than a screen problem.
If I continued the work, I would establish stronger baselines for individual modules and connect aftercare engagement to longer-term patient outcomes. A return visit or completed activity is encouraging, but the real measure of success is whether the guidance helps someone manage their health more effectively over time.
Next case study
Let’s work together.
I’m open to Senior Product Designer roles where complex problems, strong craft and measurable outcomes matter.
hey@razrashid.com
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg display="block" role="presentation" viewBox="0 0 32 32" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M 27 0 L 5 0 C 2.239 0 0 2.239 0 5 L 0 27 C 0 29.761 2.239 32 5 32 L 27 32 C 29.761 32 32 29.761 32 27 L 32 5 C 32 2.239 29.761 0 27 0 Z" fill="rgb(40, 103, 178)" height="32px" id="hrO0YMoaZ" width="32px"/><path d="M 3.6 16 L 0.2 16 L 0.2 5.3 L 3.6 5.3 Z M 1.9 3.8 C 0.8 3.8 0 3 0 1.9 C 0 0.8 0.9 0 1.9 0 C 3 0 3.8 0.8 3.8 1.9 C 3.8 3 3 3.8 1.9 3.8 Z M 16 16 L 12.6 16 L 12.6 10.2 C 12.6 8.5 11.9 8 10.9 8 C 9.9 8 8.9 8.8 8.9 10.3 L 8.9 16 L 5.5 16 L 5.5 5.3 L 8.7 5.3 L 8.7 6.8 C 9 6.1 10.2 5 11.9 5 C 13.8 5 15.8 6.1 15.8 9.4 L 15.8 16 Z" fill="rgb(255, 255, 255)" height="16.000000190734863px" id="Ocq6OAmI9" transform="translate(8 8)" width="16px"/></svg>)
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg display="block" role="presentation" viewBox="0 0 32 32" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><path d="M 32 5 C 32 2.239 29.761 0 27 0 L 5 0 C 2.239 0 0 2.239 0 5 L 0 27 C 0 29.761 2.239 32 5 32 L 27 32 C 29.761 32 32 29.761 32 27 Z" fill="rgb(0, 0, 0)" height="32px" id="JVzKgZkM5" width="32px"/><path d="M 0 2.667 C 0 1.194 1.194 0 2.667 0 C 4.139 0 5.333 1.194 5.333 2.667 C 5.333 4.139 4.139 5.333 2.667 5.333 C 1.194 5.333 0 4.139 0 2.667 Z" fill="rgb(26, 188, 254)" height="5.333399999999999px" id="ydcjNquk_" transform="translate(15.983 13.333)" width="5.333300000000001px"/><path d="M 0 2.667 C 0 1.194 1.194 0 2.667 0 L 5.333 0 L 5.333 2.667 C 5.333 4.139 4.139 5.333 2.667 5.333 C 1.194 5.333 0 4.139 0 2.667 Z" fill="rgb(10, 207, 131)" height="5.333300000000001px" id="NPUpvGMxn" transform="translate(10.65 18.667)" width="5.333399999999999px"/><path d="M 0 0 L 0 5.333 L 2.667 5.333 C 4.139 5.333 5.333 4.139 5.333 2.667 C 5.333 1.194 4.139 0 2.667 0 Z" fill="rgb(255, 114, 98)" height="5.3332999999999995px" id="jGljsiE4Z" transform="translate(15.983 8)" width="5.333300000000001px"/><path d="M 0 2.667 C 0 4.139 1.194 5.333 2.667 5.333 L 5.333 5.333 L 5.333 0 L 2.667 0 C 1.194 0 0 1.194 0 2.667 Z" fill="rgb(242, 78, 30)" height="5.3332999999999995px" id="JUFtWyYKp" transform="translate(10.65 8)" width="5.333399999999999px"/><path d="M 0 2.667 C 0 4.139 1.194 5.333 2.667 5.333 L 5.333 5.333 L 5.333 0 L 2.667 0 C 1.194 0 0 1.194 0 2.667 Z" fill="rgb(162, 89, 255)" height="5.333399999999999px" id="StHT4lRlg" transform="translate(10.65 13.333)" width="5.333399999999999px"/></svg>)
©
Selected works / Raz