Four notification variants that escalate by how much a member needs to act — anchored on the relationship with their doctor, not the raw data.
A UX writing exercise from an interview process with Atria. Concept work — not shipped product.
I'm assuming the typical Atria member is someone optimizing their health — not just observing and managing it. That's the key difference between what Atria offers and "traditional" GP's or healthcare models. As a digital experience, members are interested in the raw information their medical team has to offer, but more importantly what are the action steps to be taken. In other words, whatever "ideal health" means to that member is what the product should be helping them march towards. This isn't "Zocdoc" where it's almost like a parental, condescending "You forgot to schedule your dentist" appointment tone — this is about high-stakes health for ambitious (or high medical risk) people.
Communicate lab results are available while closing the "worry loop"
KEY MESSAGE AND EMOTIONAL DELTA"Whatever your results are, your medical partner is here for you and will guide you through them together."
KEY ACTION(S)Read note / Schedule time to talk / View results
KEY METRICReduction in anxiety-driven inbound messages — "where are my results?" inquiries; booked follow-ups only where their CMO recommends one
Your care team is reviewing them alongside your health history and goals. You should hear from Dr. Garb in a few days.
Notes: This framing helps the member to not read raw results as the whole story and offers reassurance by reminding them that context is more important than pure data.
Dr. Garb is reviewing them now and will walk you through what they mean during your appointment on Thursday, June 18.
Notes: Calling out their CMO/Doctor by name to humanize the moment and emphasizing that raw data may not fully give the full picture or determination.
Dr. Garb has reviewed your results and left a note with a few recommended next steps. You can read it now, or schedule time to talk through it together.
Notes: We don't address the outcome of the results themselves in the notification. We focus only on the relationship with the doctor as what comes next, without overpromising or minimizing. It's not the data that they need to focus on, it's what their Atria partner is going to do for and with them.
Dr. Garb has reviewed your results and will explain what they mean along with any recommended next steps.
Notes: In this variant, clinically significant results have made the physician want to communicate them in-person. Again, we don't want to overpromise or minimize the results. However, we stay authoritative yet reassuring they will be walked through it with their CMO. We focus only on the relationship with the doctor as what comes next. It's not the data that they need to focus on, it's what their Atria partner is going to do for and with them.
The goal of the web portal isn't to use more of the available real estate, it's to let the existing information breathe and provide a slightly broader preview of information. The same information hierarchy would apply, but make sure to prioritize visually and through color/design any action steps needed. For example, in Variant 1 where no action is REQUIRED of the user, the layout would show a "calm" state — reassurance front and center, no prominent CTA. In the other variants where there is action to be taken, that CTA would be more prominently centered, with clear visual indicators for what the member needs to do.
Dr. Garb has reviewed your results and left a note with a few recommended next steps. You can read it now, or schedule time to talk through it together.
"Overall your results were reassuring. A couple of values — your LDL and vitamin D — came back a little outside the ideal range, which is common and very…"
Read full note →Dr. Garb has reviewed your results and will explain what they mean along with any recommended next steps.
You and Dr. Garb will walk through everything together — what your results mean, what comes next, and any questions on your mind. There's nothing you need to prepare.
The work is on Atria to execute both in brand and product to fulfill the mission of "…care that would eliminate worry and uncertainty." The raw results are available to members but the data on its own isn't something a member can act on, and it's not what they're paying for. They're paying for insight, context and expertise from highly trained professionals, which the copy puts front and center: For example, "your doctor," and the action they're taking, "is reviewing."
Raw results release to members as soon as they're available — the notification layer can't withhold them, only frame them. The copy works with that constraint, not around it.
This isn't an Experian FICO credit report — "Your score went up, nice work!!" — that renders a Good/Bad verdict. Atria's job is to let them know that a highly qualified Atria medical team member — good news or not — is going to walk you through every step of this and explain what options exist.
The trade-off I made is for reassurance over immediate meaning. We could preview a value judgement based on the test results, but "test results" aren't why people come to Atria. The value is in the context provided and relationship members have with their CMO — a trusted partner in their health journey. So we anchor messaging around that medical professional's personal hand in their results — no matter what they are. For the 3b exception, I leaned more into a slightly more direct tone and would adopt any escalation policies Atria has for clinically or legally sensitive results.
First stop would be my PM. If there wasn't a formal kick off for this and it was a one-off "let's improve this page/screen," I'd clarify what the metric for success was here. Are we trying to increase booked visits with the medical team? Better brand our medical team's positioning as partners in our members' care journey by reminding users that they are not alone and have a whole team behind them? From my conversation with Courtney, it sounds like we may not be optimizing for "traditional" short-term KPIs but rather looking at increasing the long-term value for members. If so, what does that look like and how do we capture it if it's not a usual numerical metric? NPS scores, for example, or reducing anxiety driven messaging to the care team. Secondly, what's our engineering bandwidth on this — what can actually change about the page, what can't and how much lead time do they need to do it?
My next conversation would be whoever the medical-product liaison might be. Someone who is available for the product team to speak with to formally or informally review member facing content. Potentially in lieu of this, I'd schedule time to speak with our legal counsel about what are the absolute must-nots as it relates to medical disclosures.
After that, I'd speak with my product design partner on this and ask what figma explorations they may have, if any. I'd approach with some loose boxes and arrows mock ups to help spur the conversation as well.