Executive Overview

Health system websites are increasingly positioned as the “front door” to care—but in Q1 2025, patient feedback and user testing continue to reveal fundamental design flaws that undermine trust, access, and engagement.

This report distills findings from thousands of data points and firsthand feedback to illuminate three core issues plaguing digital care experiences:

• Confusing or redundant navigation
  
  
• Lack of transparency in provider availability
  
  
• Friction-filled scheduling workflows
  
  

This quarter’s research also surfaces key emotional drivers behind consumer behavior—including frustration with impersonal systems, anxiety about access delays, and the need for reassurance in digital channels.

What’s Inside:

• High-impact quotes from patients
  
  
• Actionable experience design recommendations
  
  
• Insights into how people search, evaluate, and decide
  
  
• A look ahead at what’s driving PX strategy in 2025
  
  

Chapter 1: First Impressions Still Fail

The Problem: Navigation Overload

Across multiple user studies, participants encountered too many equally weighted options at the homepage level. While intentions were good—to offer multiple ways to “find care”—the result was cognitive friction.

🔍 What we saw:

• Patients faced with a homepage that includes multiple similar links (e.g., “Find Care,” “Search Providers,” “Explore Services”) felt unsure which path to take.
  
  
• Important entry points like the search bar were often buried or below the fold.
  
  
• Users defaulted to whatever looked clickable—even if it wasn’t the most efficient path.
  
  

💬 Patient Quote:

“I don’t want to choose wrong. Do I click ‘Search’ or ‘Find’? Or should I just go back and call?”

💡 Opportunity:
Simplify homepage architecture to prioritize one flexible entry point—ideally a prominent, open-ended search bar with a supporting zip code and radius input.

Chapter 2: Search Logic That Confuses Instead of Clarifies

The Problem: Filters That Feel Like a Puzzle

Even when patients successfully began a search, the logic behind provider listings often didn’t match expectations.

🔍 What we saw:

• Users expected to search by symptom, specialty, or provider name. But provider suggestions often lacked context (e.g., ratings, distance, availability).
  
  
• Filters were often confusing. Terms like “Visit Type” didn’t clearly indicate whether a provider was available for virtual or in-person care.
  
  
• Sorting by “Relevance” was poorly understood; many preferred sorting by availability, but lacked confidence in what “availability” actually meant.
  
  

💬 Patient Quote:

“Is this an actual person I can book with today? Or just someone related to what I typed in?”

💡 Opportunity:

• Use clear, patient-centered labels for filters
  
  
• Show availability, distance, and insurance acceptance upfront
  
  
• Limit cognitive load with progressive filtering, rather than offering every option at once
  
  

Chapter 3: Scheduling: When “Easy” Becomes a Dead End 

The Problem: Inflexible Appointment Workflows

While some users completed online scheduling with little effort, others—especially new patients—experienced breakdowns that led to abandonment or calls to the contact center.

🔍 What we saw:

• Users with existing accounts were often forced to schedule as a “guest” if their current provider was no longer available.
  
  
• Patients were re-entering personal data that should have auto-filled from their digital profile.
  
  
• Wait times of 3+ months were common, particularly when trying to schedule with a physician instead of an NP or PA.
  
  

💬 Patient Quote:

“I’ve been in the system for years, and now I have to start over just to find a new doctor?”

💡 Opportunity:

• Allow logged-in users to schedule with any available provider
  
  
• Auto-fill patient data when authenticated
  
  
• Prioritize appointment visibility based on urgency and relevance
  
  

Chapter 4: Virtual Visits Are Undermined by Poor Messaging 

The Problem: Mistrust of the “Default to Digital” Model

Participants in multiple sessions misunderstood the nature of virtual appointments due to unclear labeling, missing context, or poor timing of educational messages.

🔍 What we saw:

• Pages offering only virtual options weren’t clearly labeled, leading to confusion or mistrust.
  
  
• Pop-up modals about virtual care sounded vague or contradictory (e.g., “This visit may not include follow-up”).
  
  
• Users wanted to know: “Will I be able to see this provider again if I like them?”
  
  

💬 Patient Quote:

“If this is a one-time virtual visit, just say that. Don’t let me think I’ve found my new doctor.”

💡 Opportunity:

• Explicitly label virtual care flows and set expectations up front
  
  
• Offer follow-up guidance or transition options after the visit
  
  
• Separate virtual-only providers from those offering hybrid models
  
  

Chapter 5: Recommendations for Healthcare Leaders 

Market Insight & Competitive Implications 

Why This Matters

Patients are no longer passive healthcare consumers. In 2025, they expect:

• Digital experiences that work intuitively
  
  
• Clear choices, not confusing menus
  
  
• Transparency about what to expect next
  
  

The cost of friction is high:

• Lost revenue from abandoned scheduling
  
  
• Increased contact center volume
  
  
• Declining Net Promoter Scores
  
  
• Erosion of trust—especially when digital is the first touchpoint
  
  

Appendix & Methodology 

• Aggregated data from 300+ real patient feedback entries
  
  
• Longitudinal survey tracking from 2023–2025
  
  
• Usability testing across 10 sessions (mobile & desktop)
  
  
• Demographics include majority of users aged 55+, representing key Medicare segments
  
  
• Data normalized and debranded for applicability across all health systems