Aurevia Care
Acute Care-at-Home Platform
Referral received
System integration
Field visit · 14:00
Clinician assigned
Check-in · 18:30
Same episode
Clinical context
Sourced from health system
Medication list
Source unavailable
Handover note
Updated 22 min ago
A connected digital platform for patient intake, scheduling, telehealth, care coordination, and healthcare-system integration.
- Product Manager
- Product Research · Product Strategy · Execution
- Integrated Care Coordination
- Intake, Scheduling & Telehealth
Coordination was happening outside the product.
Intake came in from multiple directions. Scheduling depended on who was available, where they were, and what the patient needed next. Clinical context arrived from systems that weren't built to share.
The result was a care team that spent significant effort re-establishing what was already known.
Care at home moves acute care out of a building where everyone can see each other, and into a coordination problem across clinicians, field staff, patients, families, and the referring health system.
There is no hallway. Whatever the product doesn't carry, someone has to carry by phone.
Understand the episode, not the appointment.
I focused on the shape of a care episode over days: what changes, who needs to know, and which decisions can't wait.
Field staff described the gaps most precisely, because they were the ones arriving without context.
One coordination view per patient episode.
We defined a shared episode view that combined intake information, schedule, visits, telehealth touchpoints, and integration-sourced clinical context.
The design goal was reduction of re-asking: if the system already knew it, nobody should have to ask again.
Integration as a product constraint.
Health-system integrations set the pace of the roadmap. We designed the episode view to degrade gracefully when a data source was unavailable, and to make it obvious what was missing.
Telehealth was treated as one modality inside the episode rather than a separate product experience.
Decisions I’d defend.
Stand up scheduling and telehealth as separate modules
Build one coordination view per care episode.
- Avoids recreating the original problem
- Removes re-asking for known context
- Telehealth becomes one modality, not a product
Wait for integrations before shipping
Degrade gracefully and show what is missing.
- A delay reduces richness, not release
- Unknown and empty are treated differently
- Roadmap survives partner timelines
Scheduling and telehealth were built to serve the coordination view. Standing them up as independent modules would have recreated the original problem in software.
In care delivery, an empty field and an unknown value are different things. The product distinguishes them, because clinicians act differently on each.
Every surface was reviewed against a simple test: could someone taking over this patient today understand where things stand without a phone call?
Shipping reality.
Integration dependencies meant our plan changed regularly. We kept a clear picture of what worked without any integration, so a delay reduced richness rather than blocking the release.
Compliance and clinical safety review were part of the definition work, not a gate at the end.
What it taught me.
When the team is distributed, the product becomes the shared memory. That's a higher bar than a good UI.
Getting adoption in care delivery is mostly about removing steps from people who are already stretched.