Treatment Navigator (TxN) 2023 - Present
A patient-centered digital consultation tool that transforms how Aspen Dental’s 1,000+ offices help patients understand, compare, and accept their treatments with clarity and confidence.
Overview
TxNavigator is a digital consultation platform that replaces Aspen Dental’s paper-based workflow with a clear, guided experience for both Office Managers (OMs) and patients.
It allows treatment plan presentation, patient education, cost transparency, financing applications, and digital signatures — all within one unified experience.
As the Lead UX/UI Designer, I led the design from research and concept definition to nationwide rollout.
The result is a system that simplified complex consultations into a trust-driven, data-backed digital experience now used in 1,000+ offices across the U.S.
My Role
Lead UX & UI Designer, UX Researcher
Timeline
May 2023 – Present
Scope:
Research · UX/UI Design · Testing · Field Training · Analytics
Impact:
+15% patient acceptance (pilot) · Nationwide adoption within 12 months
About Aspen Dental
Aspen Dental is one of the largest dental-care providers in the United States, operating over 1,100 branded offices across the country. Since its founding in 1998, Aspen’s mission has been to break down the barriers to access—helping more Americans receive quality dental care. Through its network of independently-owned practices supported by Aspen Dental Management, the company also operates educational and outreach initiatives such as the TAG Oral Care Center for Excellence.
Treatment Navigator was developed under The Aspen Group (TAG), a healthcare organization that operates 1,300+ clinics across the U.S., including Aspen Dental, ClearChoice, and WellNow Urgent Care.
Context & Challenge
Before Treatment Navigator, Aspen Dental relied on paper-based and semi-digital workflows to present treatment plans to patients.
While functional, these tools created confusion for patients, inefficiency for staff, and inconsistency for the business at scale.
To design an effective solution, I analyzed challenges across three interconnected perspectives — patients, office staff, and the organization.
Patients often struggle to fully understand their treatment plan, with many describing the experience as feeling like a ‘car dealership’—even in otherwise positive reviews.
Car dealership
Aspen Treatment
treatment plan persentation‼️
User A: Patient
“I don’t really understand what’s covered or why this costs more.”
— Patient interview participant
Patient Pain Points
For patients, the consultation experience often felt confusing, rushed, and hard to follow.
Dense paperwork and inconsistent explanations made it difficult to make confident healthcare decisions.
Key Challenges
-
Dense paper or PDF forms were visually overwhelming and filled with technical terms.
-
Unreliable iPad/device setup sometimes caused mid-consult glitches or restarts.
-
Treatment options felt confusing or irrelevant, lacking clear visuals or hierarchy.
-
Content inconsistencies between printed pages and verbal explanations weakened trust.
-
High-pressure decisions: patients often felt rushed to agree before fully understanding coverage or cost.
Design Opportunity:
Help patients visualize, compare, and understand treatments at their own pace — building clarity, confidence, and trust.
User B: Office Manager (OM)
“I spend more time explaining the paper than talking about care.”
— Office Manager, NC
Office Manager (OM) / Staff Workflow Challenges
Office Managers (OMs) are the backbone of the consult process — balancing presentation, education, financing, and system navigation.
However, their workflow was burdened by manual steps and inconsistent digital tools.
Key Challenges
-
Manual adjustments in EPMS slowed down conversations and increased error risk.
-
Inconsistent signature flow: unplugging devices to capture patient signatures interrupted momentum.
-
PAR sync issues: required frequent refreshes or manual uploads.
-
Edge cases not optimized: scenarios like edentulous or denture patients required workarounds.
-
Printing the PAR generated excessive pages and inconsistent formatting.
-
Lack of presentation context: OMs had to switch between multiple screens or rely on memory to explain benefits.
Design Opportunity:
Simplify the OM experience with a guided, reliable flow that minimizes manual effort and keeps focus on patient connection, not system friction.
Mainstatke holder: The Aspen Group
Organizational Challenges
At a business level, the lack of standardization across offices made it difficult to maintain quality and measure performance consistently.
Without unified tools or training, consultation outcomes varied widely across the organization.
Key Challenges
-
Inconsistent treatment presentation across offices affected patient trust and acceptance rates.
-
Training gaps left OMs uncertain about using the digital PAR effectively.
-
Variability in acceptance rates made it hard to evaluate success and identify opportunities.
-
Paper-based workflows increased operational errors and delayed reporting.
-
Limited quality control: no standardized way to monitor consult quality across 1,000+ offices.
Design Opportunity:
Establish a unified, data-driven digital system that improves consultation quality, standardizes patient experience, and provides measurable insights for continuous improvement.
TxNavigator needed to bridge all three perspectives —
helping patients feel informed and confident, staff work efficiently and consistently,
and the organization deliver trusted, high-quality care at scale.
Legacy Workflow vs. TxNavigator
From paper-based confusion → to a clear, digital treatment experience.
Design Foundation – The ACT Framework
TxNavigator was built around Aspen’s ACT (Aspen Consult Technique) — a behavioral framework used to guide every patient consultation clear, consistent, and trustworthy.
Core Principles
This framework guided both UX research and design decisions, ensuring the product aligned with business and clinical goals.
Research Activities
Throughout the project, we conducted over 100+ research activities to ensure that every design iteration was validated and grounded in real behavior.
Phase 1 – Discovery & Definition (Before Design)
Goal: Understand the existing consultation workflow and uncover key patient & OM pain points.
Research Activities
-
Office Visits & Field Observation: Conducted multiple on-site shadowing sessions across pilot offices to map real consultation journeys.
-
Office Manager Interviews: 20+ semi-structured interviews to uncover workflow friction, timing pressure, and communication barriers.
-
OM & Patient Surveys: Quantified top pain points and comprehension gaps from 300+ respondents.
-
Patient Interviews: Explored emotional journey, expectations, and confusion points during cost discussions.
-
Market Benchmarking: Compared pricing and consultation experiences across 5 major dental providers.
Output & Insights:
-
Comprehensive workflow map (current vs. ideal).
-
Defined design opportunities across comprehension, transparency, and workflow speed.
-
Personas synthesized for both OMs and patients.
Research Example (Before Design) #1
Office Visits & Field Observation, and OM + Patient interview
Observed real-time consultations across 10+ pilot offices and interviewed a wide range of office staff — including dentists, dental assistants, hygienists, Office Managers, and front-desk teams — to understand their workflows and how they interact with patients throughout the patient office visit experience.”
Phase 2 – Iterative Design & Validation (During Design)
Goal: Validate clarity, usability, and emotional response throughout iterative prototype testing.
Research Activities
-
A/B Testing: Evaluated discount display logic (“positive vs. negative values”) and visual hierarchy for cost summary clarity.
-
Usability Testing (UserTesting.com): 6 remote studies testing patient comprehension of TxNavigator’s PAR screen and treatment review flow.
-
Component-Specific Testing:
-
1.Denture Compare Chart” interaction testing
-
2. TxNavigator PAR Evolution” prototype validation
-
-
Design Iterations with Dev Collaboration: Prototyped and validated dual-screen experience (desktop ↔ iPad).
Output & Insights:
-
Comprehensive workflow map (current vs. ideal).
-
Defined design opportunities across comprehension, transparency, and workflow speed.
-
Personas synthesized for both OMs and patients.
Research Example (During Design) #1
Treatment Navigator denture compare chart usability
To validate how effectively patients could compare different denture plans, I led a three-round remote unmoderated usability study using Userlytics. Each round involved six participants (18 total) performing identical tasks, allowing us to measure improvements across iterations.
Objectives:
-
Evaluate how easily users can compare denture types and pricing.
-
Test if reduced icon density improves clarity.
-
Identify the best way to indicate additional options available for comparison.
Method:
-
Platform: Userlytics (Remote, Unmoderated)
-
Tasks: Navigate denture comparison chart, switch denture types, identify best plan, and interpret pricing details.
-
Prototype: Interactive Figma flow (chip filters + comparison table).
-
Metrics: Task success rate, click paths, time to completion, and qualitative feedback.
-
Rounds: Three iterative tests (6 participants per round, total = 18).
Key Insights:
-
Chip filter interaction: All users switched denture types easily; most used filters intuitively before instructions.
-
Label clarity: Confusion arose between “Recommended” and “Better Option”; users found “Recommended” clearer and more trustworthy.
-
Price understanding: Users valued the distinction between list price vs. total price, influencing final recommendations.
-
Visual cue for options: Several users overlooked that more denture types were scrollable; subtle cues like arrows improved discoverability.
Design Impact:
Findings informed the final version of the Denture Compare chart, optimizing hierarchy, labeling, and chip-filter behavior.
This study directly guided the final release version used in TxNavigator, improving comprehension and patient decision confidence.
Results Matrix
Iteration Summary Table
Userlytics result summary and dashboard snippet
Screenshots from unmoderated usability sessions conducted on Userlytics.
After each round, I reviewed all session recordings to analyze user behavior, identify usability issues, and extract key insights that guided the next iteration.
Research Example (During Design) #2
Treatment Navigator PAR Evolution
PAR (Patient Acceptance of Responsibility) is the final step in the treatment journey, where patients review costs, insurance coverage, and payment responsibilities before signing. It’s a critical moment that determines whether patients proceed with care.
Problem:
The legacy PAR (Blue PAR) was a paper-based form, creating both friction and confusion at the most crucial point of the patient experience.
-
Terminology such as “bundling” was unclear and easily misunderstood.
-
Insurance estimates were seen as unreliable, leading to distrust in the final cost.
-
The visual layout resembled a dense administrative document, not a patient-friendly summary.
-
The tone felt transactional, lacking empathy or reassurance.
These issues often caused patients to hesitate or delay care, lowering treatment acceptance rates and increasing administrative burden for Office Managers.
This lack of clarity and trust resulted in:
-
Reduced treatment conversion due to hesitation and confusion.
-
Increased time for Office Managers to re-explain estimates.
-
Missed opportunities to deliver timely care.
Goal
To evolve the PAR into a clear, intuitive, and trustworthy digital experience that:
-
Aligns with TxNavigator treatment selections for consistency.
-
Builds confidence through transparency in costs and insurance benefits.
-
Supports informed decision-making through a friendly, receipt-like design.
-
Transforms the process from a paper-based transaction into a human-centered digital experience that builds trust and encourages timely acceptance of care.
Research Overview
We conducted four rounds of iterative testing to evolve the PAR across versions.
Each round combined quantitative ratings and qualitative insights from both patients and Office Managers.
Test 1 – Blue PAR (Baseline)
Key Findings:
-
Math understandable but required effort to match costs & discounts.
-
“Bundling” terminology unclear → misinterpretation.
-
Low trust in insurance estimates → hesitation.
-
Layout lacked hierarchy and warmth.
Insight:
“It looks like a receipt, but I still don’t know which part is discount or insurance.”
Usability Rating Table
Test 2 – PAR v1
Focus: Clarify cost breakdown and tie to TxNavigator selections.
Findings
-
Matched product names to TxNavigator.
-
Added itemized “Additional Dental Work” section.
-
Linked discounts to specific products.
-
Simplified insurance estimate labeling.
Result: Average clarity score ↑ from 4.17 → 4.42.
Usability Rating Table
Test 3 – PAR v2
Research Methods
-
3a – Office Manager Interviews: Explored operational pain points.
-
3b – Patient Comprehension Test: Observed live usability behavior.
Based on the previous feedback, I created the next version and ran another test. Here is the updated design:
1. Review treatment plan summary
2. Review estimate treatment plan total
3. Signing the signature on digital PAR
OM Insights
-
Label final total as “Estimate”.
-
Combine items into one total; add warranty tooltip.
-
Remove future card details from payment schedule.
-
Show original + discounted + insurance benefit breakdown.
Office Manager Interviews on Teams
Patient Insights
-
“Show Price Detail” & pop-ups improved clarity.
-
Still unclear on payment schedule (e.g., $700 today vs total).
-
Rename “Insurance Discount” → “Insurance Benefit”.
Action: Revised terminology + reorganized pricing hierarchy.
Usability Rating Table
Test 4 – PAR v3 (Latest Version)
Using insights from the previous round, I iterated the design and ran the next usability test. Here is the updated version:
1. Review treatment plan summary and estimate total
2. Signing the signature on digital PAR
Findings
-
Users clearly understood total cost, discounts, out-of-pocket amounts.
-
Requested more context: procedure duration, recovery time, annual max.
-
Payment schedule clear but could link to treatment milestones.
Recommendations
-
Add insurance context (annual max & remaining coverage).
-
Enhance pop-ups with recovery & pain info.
-
Connect payment schedule to treatment phases.
Usability Rating Table
The unmoderated Userlytics sessions.
Outcome & Impact
Result
-
Improved comprehension and trust.
-
Reduced hesitation during payment signing.
-
Supported measurable increase in treatment acceptance.
Phase 3 – Launch, Field Research & Continuous Iteration (After Launch)
After launching the new Treatment Navigator, I conducted multi-method field research across three pilot offices in North Carolina. The goal was to observe real consultations, validate usability in real context, and identify workflow friction that wasn’t visible through remote testing.
Goal: Evaluate adoption, usability, and impact in real offices; scale improvements across 1,000+ locations.
Research Activities
-
Pre-Launch Training & Materials: Created video tutorials and quick guides for Office Managers to ensure smooth rollout.
-
Field Visits & Observation: Conducted follow-up visits across NC pilot offices to observe live interactions and capture usability pain points.
-
Post-Launch Surveys & Interviews: Compared baseline and post-launch feedback from OMs and patients.
-
Google Analytics Tracking: Monitored adoption rate, screen engagement, and drop-off points.
-
Issue & Feedback Tracking: Collected field tickets, categorized UX issues, and prioritized enhancements.
Output & Insights:
-
Validated improved acceptance rates and reduced consult time.
-
Prioritized next-version roadmap based on real usage data.
-
Continuous iteration loop established for future enhancements.
Research Example (After Design) #1
Pre-Launch Training & Materials
I created visual training materials, demo videos, and quick guides for Office Managers and assisted with on-site pilot training in North Carolina. Within a year, TxNavigator scaled from 6 → 25 → 1,000+ offices nationwide, supported by strong adoption and positive feedback.
Research Example (After Design) #2
Field Visits & Observation
After launching the new Treatment Navigator, we conducted multi-method field research across 6 pilot offices in North Carolina. The goal was to observe real consultations, validate usability in real context, and identify workflow friction that wasn’t visible through remote testing.
Although usability testing showed strong clarity improvements, we needed to understand:
-
How OMs would actually present treatment plans during real consultations
-
How patients reacted when reviewing the digital PAR in person
-
What operational friction existed in the real office environment
-
Whether Treatment Navigator improved treatment acceptance and financial workflows
Field research filled the gap between prototype-level predictions and real-world usage.
Research Methods we conducted during the field visits:
-
Moderated Consult Observations: 30+ real consultations across 6 offices (desktop + iPad + in-room camera recording)
-
OM Surveys (Baseline vs. New UX): Evaluated clarity, efficiency, confidence, and workflow impact
-
Patient Surveys: Paper + QR surveys conducted immediately after consult
-
Weekly OM Interviews: 30-minute feedback sessions to gather continuous insights
-
Workflow Shadowing: Observed how OMs built treatment plans in EPMS + TxNavigator
Field Consult Observations Setup
To capture a full picture of the consult experience, we recorded multi-angle sessions using Teams desktop recording, iPad screen recordings, and an in-room camera to capture facial reactions and interaction patterns.
Field Observation: How OMs Use TxNavigator in Real Consultations
Observed how Office Managers introduced treatments, guided patients through pricing, and supported decision-making using TxNavigator. Provided real-time assistance when they encountered issues, and documented how they combined TxN with other tools (paper charts, tooth models, ICT) during their sales process.
Insight 1 — Digital presentation strengthened OM confidence
OMs naturally used “loss framing” more effectively when visuals were structured and clear.
Insight 2 — Patients found the digital PAR easier to understand
Across all three offices, patients consistently described the digital version as clear, simple, and reassuring.
Insight 3 — Single-plan cases felt overwhelming
When only one plan was available, repeated alerts (“!”) created unnecessary anxiety for patients — even when the plan was good.
Insight 4 — Printed PAR was too long
Large fonts and generous spacing caused 6–7 printed pages, slowing down the consult flow.
Insight 5 — GenDen workflows under-supported
Offices frequently needed mixed denture + general dentistry plans, but the tool wasn’t optimized for these scenarios.
Insight 6 — Important workflow bugs surfaced only in offices
Sync issues, PAR attribution bugs, and plan switching friction were not detectable in remote tests.
Field Outcomes (Quantitative Results)
Research Example (After Design) #3
Post-Launch Analytics Tracking
Using Google Analytics, I monitored real-world adoption of the Treatment Navigator after launch—tracking active users, screen-level engagement, and key drop-off points. These insights validated usage patterns observed during field visits and helped prioritize the next round of design improvements based on actual behavior rather than assumptions.
Research Example (After Design) #4
Post-Launch Consult Recording Review (GONG)
After launch, we monitored real consult sessions using GONG, a call-recording and coaching tool already used by Operations. By reviewing annotated consult recordings that included Treatment Navigator usage, we were able to observe real-world patient reactions, OM behaviors, hesitation points, and moments of confusion that do not always surface in surveys or office visits.
These insights helped validate the design in live environments and informed targeted iteration priorities.
DESIGN
Key Features
-
Treatment Presentation Page
Where the Office Manager introduces recommended treatments, estimated costs, and benefits.
Design Focus:
-
Simplified layout for readability and quick comprehension.
-
Clear visual grouping for “Doctor-Recommended” vs. “Alternative” plans.
-
Integrated visuals (e.g., x-rays, illustrations) to help patients understand procedures.
-
Quick comparison between treatment plans.
Before → After Insight:
Originally a dense text summary in EPMS; redesigned into a visually guided consult interface that drives conversation and engagement.
2. Final Treatment Plan Review
The summary screen before patients proceed to acceptance — where treatment details, discounts, and insurance coverage are consolidated.
Design Focus:
-
Clear hierarchy:
Treatment Details → Insurance Coverage → Out-of-Pocket Cost. -
Highlighted insurance discounts in green to reinforce perceived value.
-
Simple, intuitive total breakdown with cost transparency.
UX Improvement:
Patients can now easily understand what’s included, what’s covered, and what they’re paying — a key factor that increased treatment acceptance rates.
3. PAR (Patient Acceptance & Responsibility) Signing Page
A digital signing experience replacing printed forms and manual uploads.
Design Focus:
-
Guided signing flow: “Review → Sign → Confirm.”
-
Device sync: OM initiates from desktop, patient signs on iPad.
-
Real-time sync status (e.g., “Sent to iPad,” “Signed Successfully”).
-
Accessible typography and touch targets for different patient age groups.
Value:
Eliminated paper scanning errors, saved OM time, and reduced patient confusion during signature steps.
4. Success Page
Provide closure and confirmation after signing — reinforcing patient confidence.
Design Focus:
-
Clear success state (“You’re all set!”).
-
Options to print, download, or send to Patient Portal.
-
Reinforces next steps (“Your treatment details are available in the portal”).
Impact:
Improved clarity and sense of completion; reduced follow-up confusion and rework.
Future UI Direction — 2.0 Visual System
A next-generation visual language aligned with the 2026 brand refresh:
-
Cleaner layout
-
Softer colors
-
Component-level accessibility refinements
-
Modernized visual hierarchy
Impact
-
18% increase in treatment acceptance (pilot offices)
-
35% increase in financing application completion
-
Adopted by 1,000+ offices nationwide within one year
-
Improved OM efficiency and patient understanding
-
Standardized treatment presentation across the organization
Next Steps
-
Expand treatment coverage
Add support for partials, crowns, implants, mixed cases, and edentulous workflows to make TxNavigator usable across all consult types.
-
Refine PAR & financial clarity
Link payment schedules to treatment phases, improve insurance context (annual max, remaining benefits), and simplify the PDF layout to reduce page count.
-
Streamline OM workflows
Enable pre-loading multiple treatment plans, reduce refresh dependencies, and allow financing + PAR sync through a single QR code.
-
Improve patient education
Add clearer procedure explanations (duration, recovery, pain expectations), updated visuals, and printable take-home content.
-
Strengthen analytics insights
Track engagement, drop-off points, and acceptance-rate impact to guide future iterations and prioritize high-value improvements.
-
Prepare for 2026 brand UI update
Evolve the visual system to align with Aspen’s upcoming brand refresh and improve accessibility.
View More Projects
