Connecting physical therapists with assisted living equipment for their patients

Motion/ Desktop Site

Jan - Feb 2022

My role

UX/UI design, QA


2 designers
1 Product Manager
1 VP Design
1 dev lead, 2 devs


Hifi designs, client meetings



Client and brief
Motion connects patients & their physical therapists with assisted living equipment, like wheelchairs, stairlifts, walking aids, and mobility scooters. They do this by granting patients access to funding to government programs, like the Assisted Device Program (ADP) of Ontario, so patients obtain equipment at a reduced cost or for free. 

This process involves therapists and patients filling in a lot of forms and paperwork. Traditionally, this has been done through paper and faxing. My team at Versett was approached to digitize this process. After Phase 1.0 was built, I was brought onto this project at Phase 1.1 to improve on the portal.

My role was to sit in on client meetings and integrate client feedback and perform maintenance. Below were the main problems to fix:
- Minutiae UX improvements, like identifying missing error states, and looking to Figma design files and performing QA to check for disparities between what was live vs what was intended in Figma
- New features, like excel sheet upload, and building out a new flow for a new form


Motion/ Desktop Site
ORder & customize
The process of getting assisted living equipment to patients and their therapists involved a back-and-forth process of form filling. A therapist (or authorizer) has to create a profile for their patient on the site, send it to be looked over and signed by a Motion team representative, then co-signed by all 3 parties. In actuality, the forms filled in by the therapist often had mistakes or info missing, so the Motion team would have to send the application back to the therapist with comments for correction. Often, this process would happen as below:

1. Therapist collects patient data and fills out form; Motion rep receives form
2. Motion rep looks through application and adds comments and corrections; Therapists receive these comments and corrects the form
3. Motion rep reviews the form once more and if all is well sends it to be approved by the corresponding government fund (like ADP)


Motion/ Desktop Site
Part 1: QA
We performed a QA of version 1.0 identifying these problems:

— UI problems (Text box displaying a wrong colour, identifying missing error states)
— Copy problems (missing text)
— UX problems (a feature displaying on page 1 when it should open up on a modal instead)

in the live site that didn’t correspond with the Figma designs. The other designer and I collected these errors into a figma to share these with developers and PMs. We also identified problems in UX and made suggestions to improve, below we identified this table’s symbols for showing “sort” was a bit confusing.
Part 2
Our team used Asana to keep track of all the design tasks that need to be done and divided across different assignees. We sat in on client meetings and talked over existing problems with clients, went into version 1.0 and corrected those mistakes. In v1.0, the client team raised questions over how the commenting and back-and-forth nature of the portal would work if there were long comment threads. The previous designer had designed a comment feature and hadn’t built it to be scalable, so 1 improvement I made was to build out how comments would look if threads were 10+ long. To improve UX and reduce bulk, I also added a like and react feature, so therapists and Motion reps could acknowledge a comment without adding another comment saying “ok”.
One big challenge was figuring out the feature for a group of clients called CEP clients. This stood for Central Equipment Pool, and for these CEP clients, only a certain group of Motion reps could be assigned to approve their application. From user requirements we built out a user flow to organize our data:
user flows (full flow cropped for conciseness)
We broke this complex flow down into yes/no statements on this user flow. This made presenting to the client much easier and they were able to identify points that were right or wrong much quicker.


Motion/ Desktop Site
Phase 1.1 of Motion was successfully completed and we handed off designs to developers to continue development. It launched in March and 6 months after our work the Motion team continued with our team and signed on for another phase of work.

Even though the project launched successfully, there were some blockers and problems. First, the other designer and I were invited to client meetings then asked for deliverables on the same day, before we were properly onboarded, so we had too many questions and not enough answers from the client about their business and goals. Next time, I would carve out time with the client to clarify these queries. Second, the dev team was understaffed and so the lead dev was always on crunch time and would request changes that harmed the UX but saved development time. We mostly complied with their wishes, but next time I would push back on not sacrificing design quality.