Healthcare is one of the most demanding design contexts that exists. Users are often anxious, sometimes in pain, frequently confused, and making decisions that carry real consequences. The margin for UX error is, quite literally, a matter of wellbeing.

Working on Meridian Health's patient portal taught us more about designing for trust than any other project in our studio's history. Here is what we took from it.

Trust is built through predictability. In a context where users are already managing uncertainty — about their health, about what happens next — the design must provide certainty. Actions should produce the outcomes users expect. Labels should say exactly what they mean. Navigation should never surprise. This sounds obvious until you realise how often standard UX patterns optimise for efficiency at the expense of clarity.

Hierarchy of information matters enormously. A patient looking at their test results needs to understand immediately: is this normal? What does it mean? What should I do? If those answers require reading five paragraphs of dense clinical text, the design has failed regardless of how technically accurate the information is. Information architecture in healthcare is not just a UX problem — it is a health literacy problem.

Inclusive design is non-negotiable. Healthcare serves everyone — including users with low digital literacy, users with visual impairments, users accessing services on older devices on slower connections. Every design decision must account for the full range of users, not the median user. In healthcare specifically, the users with the greatest needs are often the least well-served by default design patterns.

Designing for trust is designing for the person on their worst day. Hold that in mind throughout.

Healthcare is one of the most demanding design contexts that exists. Users are often anxious, sometimes in pain, frequently confused, and making decisions that carry real consequences. The margin for UX error is, quite literally, a matter of wellbeing.

Working on Meridian Health's patient portal taught us more about designing for trust than any other project in our studio's history. Here is what we took from it.

Trust is built through predictability. In a context where users are already managing uncertainty — about their health, about what happens next — the design must provide certainty. Actions should produce the outcomes users expect. Labels should say exactly what they mean. Navigation should never surprise. This sounds obvious until you realise how often standard UX patterns optimise for efficiency at the expense of clarity.

Hierarchy of information matters enormously. A patient looking at their test results needs to understand immediately: is this normal? What does it mean? What should I do? If those answers require reading five paragraphs of dense clinical text, the design has failed regardless of how technically accurate the information is. Information architecture in healthcare is not just a UX problem — it is a health literacy problem.

Inclusive design is non-negotiable. Healthcare serves everyone — including users with low digital literacy, users with visual impairments, users accessing services on older devices on slower connections. Every design decision must account for the full range of users, not the median user. In healthcare specifically, the users with the greatest needs are often the least well-served by default design patterns.

Designing for trust is designing for the person on their worst day. Hold that in mind throughout.

Healthcare is one of the most demanding design contexts that exists. Users are often anxious, sometimes in pain, frequently confused, and making decisions that carry real consequences. The margin for UX error is, quite literally, a matter of wellbeing.

Working on Meridian Health's patient portal taught us more about designing for trust than any other project in our studio's history. Here is what we took from it.

Trust is built through predictability. In a context where users are already managing uncertainty — about their health, about what happens next — the design must provide certainty. Actions should produce the outcomes users expect. Labels should say exactly what they mean. Navigation should never surprise. This sounds obvious until you realise how often standard UX patterns optimise for efficiency at the expense of clarity.

Hierarchy of information matters enormously. A patient looking at their test results needs to understand immediately: is this normal? What does it mean? What should I do? If those answers require reading five paragraphs of dense clinical text, the design has failed regardless of how technically accurate the information is. Information architecture in healthcare is not just a UX problem — it is a health literacy problem.

Inclusive design is non-negotiable. Healthcare serves everyone — including users with low digital literacy, users with visual impairments, users accessing services on older devices on slower connections. Every design decision must account for the full range of users, not the median user. In healthcare specifically, the users with the greatest needs are often the least well-served by default design patterns.

Designing for trust is designing for the person on their worst day. Hold that in mind throughout.