Transforming a paper-based intake process into an accessible digital workflow

Overview

Rather than simply digitizing the existing form, research focused on how intake calls actually happened. Phone representatives constantly jumped between form sections, struggled with information scattered across pages, and carried high cognitive load during emotionally sensitive conversations. The form was technically complete, but operationally misaligned. Representatives use this tool at a desk, so the product itself is desktop-only; the mobile mockups shown here were designed as a forward-looking exercise, in case the clinic ever wanted to make the tool mobile-friendly down the line.

Goals

1.Follow the conversation, not the document: reorder the intake questions to match how a phone call actually unfolds, instead of the paper form's layout.
2.Reduce missed or incorrect information: cut the backtracking and page-flipping that happened when the form fought the flow of the call.
3.Build in accessibility from the start: keyboard navigation and accessibility standards as a baseline, not an afterthought.
4.Surface trends, not just records: give staff a reporting view that turns individual intakes into patterns worth acting on.

The Problem

Intake handled entirely on paper
Confusion during live calls, with frequent backtracking
Increased chance of missed or incorrect information
Limited accessibility support
No trend analysis capability
Staff working around the tool rather than being supported by it

Problem to solve

The form needed to follow the conversation, not the document.

Strategy & Execution

Questions were reordered to match natural dialogue flow, conditional logic reduced unnecessary questions, language and visual hierarchy were simplified, and the flow was designed for keyboard navigation and accessibility standards from the start.

To see it in practice, here’s a screening moving through its questions one at a time, category by category, from the first question to a completed risk score.

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 1 of 6)

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 2 of 6)

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 3 of 6)

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 4 of 6)

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 5 of 6)

A representative completing a screening, one question at a time, through to a completed risk score (slide 6 of 6)

Tap the right side to navigate through the experience.

Starting the screening: the first question in Housing and Caregiving.

Working through the rest of the category before moving on.

Midway through the screening, now on Environment and Exposure.

Each category closes with its own score before moving to the next.

All six categories complete: an overall risk score, with the range it falls into.

Any category can be expanded to see exactly which items drove the score.

Click the right half of the image to go forward, the left half to go back.

Two versions of the form existed side by side, checking every relevant item in a category at once rather than answering one question at a time, and the clinic chose which one to use for their own internal reasons.

An alternate checklist-style version of the same screening, with a built-in consistency check (slide 1 of 5)

An alternate checklist-style version of the same screening, with a built-in consistency check (slide 2 of 5)

An alternate checklist-style version of the same screening, with a built-in consistency check (slide 3 of 5)

An alternate checklist-style version of the same screening, with a built-in consistency check (slide 4 of 5)

An alternate checklist-style version of the same screening, with a built-in consistency check (slide 5 of 5)

Tap the right side to navigate through the experience.

Checking every relevant item in a category at once, instead of one question at a time.

A built-in check catches a mismatch, like a checked item paired with 'No Concern.'

The same checklist pattern applied to Environment and Exposure.

Finishing all six categories reveals the overall score, ready to submit.

A simpler breakdown here: one line per category, instead of an expandable list.

Click the right half of the image to go forward, the left half to go back.

An agency-level insights dashboard showing concern levels and demographic breakdowns across screenings

Reporting That Surfaces Patterns

Individual screenings feed into an agency-level reporting view: concern levels across the caseload, demographic breakdowns, and trends over a chosen date range. This is where the paper process had nothing to offer. Every completed screening became data the paper version simply never captured.

A Client's History in One Place

Each client’s profile tracks their screening history and score trend over time, alongside notes and attachments, so a change in risk is visible at a glance instead of buried across separate paper files.

Outcome

Clearer, Faster Intake Calls

Reduced friction during sensitive conversations, with a workflow aligned to how representatives actually work.

Fewer Missed or Incorrect Answers

Reordered questions and built-in consistency checks cut the backtracking that led to bad data.

Accessible From the Start

Keyboard navigation and accessibility standards were part of the original design, not retrofitted later.

Patterns the Paper Process Missed

A reporting dashboard surfaced trends, including that December consistently showed increased housing-related needs, enabling proactive resource planning.

Digitizing a process requires rethinking it, not copying it. Designing for empathy includes supporting the care providers, not just the families they serve. Accessibility improvements also tend to improve usability for everyone.