The Parts of Clinical Workflow Medical Device Design Companies Often Misses

In clinical environments, workflows are rarely linear. They are shaped by interruptions, time pressure, fatigue, shifting priorities, and the realities of shared spaces. Yet many medical devices are still designed as if they will be used in controlled, uninterrupted sequences.

When we work closely with clinicians, one pattern emerges repeatedly: devices often perform well in isolation but struggle to fit seamlessly into the flow of daily practice. The issue is not a lack of technology or innovation. It’s a disconnect between how workflows are imagined and how they actually unfold.

This gap doesn’t always show up in specifications or usability reports. It shows up in pauses, workarounds, repeated steps, and small frustrations that accumulate over the course of a shift.

Workflow Is Not a Process Map

From a design standpoint, workflows are often documented as step-by-step processes. From a clinical standpoint, workflows are adaptive. They bend constantly in response to patients, colleagues, alarms, emergencies, and resource constraints.

A device may be technically easy to use, but if it requires a clinician to stop what they’re doing, change posture, shift attention, or reorient themselves mentally, it introduces friction. That friction may seem minor in testing, but in practice it compounds.

We’ve seen devices that require both hands at moments when clinicians need one hand free. Devices that assume uninterrupted attention when clinicians are multitasking. Devices that work perfectly, until they are introduced into a shared, crowded, time-sensitive environment.

These are not failures of intent. They are blind spots created when workflow is treated as static rather than lived.

Transitions Are Where Friction Lives

One of the most overlooked aspects of workflow is transition.

Not the primary use of a device, but everything around it:

• Setup and teardown

• Moving between patients

• Handing a device from one person to another

• Cleaning, charging, storing, or resetting

  
  

These moments are rarely the focus of design discussions, yet they are where clinicians often lose time or confidence.

We’ve observed cases where a device functions flawlessly once active, but its setup requires navigating cables, connectors, or modes that interrupt momentum. In other cases, the device’s storage or transport creates bottlenecks that no one anticipated because it wasn’t part of the “core use case.”

From a clinical perspective, these transitions are not secondary. They are part of the job.

The Reality of Shared Devices

Many devices are designed with an implied single user. In reality, devices are often shared across departments, shifts, and experience levels.

This introduces challenges that are easy to underestimate:

• Settings left altered from the previous use

• Accessories misplaced or inconsistently reattached

• Variations in how different clinicians interpret the same interface

  
  

When these realities aren’t considered early, clinicians adapt. They create informal rules, shortcuts, and checks to protect themselves and their patients. Over time, these adaptations become invisible norms, but they also signal where design and workflow are misaligned.

From a design perspective, these adaptations are valuable data. They show us where the device is asking clinicians to compensate.

Physical Context Matters More Than We Admit

Clinical environments impose physical constraints that don’t always make it into design reviews.

Lighting changes throughout the day. Gloves reduce tactile feedback. Noise competes with alerts. Space is shared, limited, and constantly reorganized.

Devices are used while standing, leaning, reaching, or turning away from patients.

A control that is technically accessible may be practically inconvenient. A display that is readable in isolation may be difficult to glance at under pressure. These are not dramatic failures, but they affect how smoothly a device fits into real workflows.

When we prototype, we deliberately push designs into these imperfect conditions, not to stress-test the technology, but to understand how the workflow responds.

Why Clinicians End Up Adapting the Device

When a device doesn’t align with workflow, clinicians rarely escalate it as a formal issue. Instead, they adapt.

They memorize sequences. They modify how they position the device. They adjust timing. They create habits that compensate for design gaps.

From the outside, it may appear that the device is being used successfully. From the inside, clinicians are doing additional cognitive and physical work to make it fit.

This is where collaboration becomes critical. These adaptations are not failures, they are insights. They reveal where design assumptions didn’t fully meet clinical reality.

Designing With Workflow, Not Around It

In our work, the most meaningful design improvements often come from stepping away from features and focusing on flow.

Not asking, “Does this function work?” But asking, “What does this interrupt?”

Not asking, “Is this usable?” But asking, “What does this make harder during a busy shift?”

When clinicians are involved early and meaningfully, workflow blind spots surface naturally. The conversation shifts from fixing isolated issues to shaping systems that feel intuitive because they respect how care is actually delivered.

Where This Leaves Us

The gap between device design and clinical workflow is rarely about effort or expertise. It’s about perspective.

When workflows are treated as living systems rather than diagrams, design decisions change. Prototypes evolve differently. Priorities shift from adding capability to removing friction.

For us, working directly with clinicians isn’t about validation at the end. It’s about understanding these unseen parts of workflow early, before adaptations become necessary.

Because when a device truly fits into clinical practice, it doesn’t demand attention. It quietly supports the work that matters most.