Jeff Chamberlain

Case study · PlushCare / Accolade

Asynchronous telehealth visits

Role
Product Designer
Platform
Desktop, Mobile web
Team
Design, PM, Engineering + Physicians, Customer care, Marketing
Goals
Direct-to-consumer revenue, booking conversion, retention & LTV

Overview

PlushCare's telehealth visits required a live video appointment for every consultation — even for straightforward, low-acuity cases. That requirement created friction for members who wanted care quickly and doctors whose schedules were fully booked with visits that didn't need to be synchronous.

We introduced a message-based visit option alongside the existing video visit, letting members complete an asynchronous intake and receive a treatment plan without waiting for a live appointment. My role covered the end-to-end flow: condition-specific triage questions, eligibility logic, pricing presentation, and the success and confirmation screens.

PlushCare landing page with Real Doctors, Flexible Care messaging

Competitor research

Before designing the flow, I audited how competitors handled condition-specific intake and pricing. Amazon Clinic led with a pay-per-visit model and a condition picker; Sesame required a video call before any prescription could be issued. Both informed where we wanted to sit: async-first where clinically appropriate, with pricing shown upfront.

Competitor research slide comparing Amazon Clinic and Sesame intake flows
Figma screens

Wireframes & requirements

Working in FigJam with the PM and a physician partner, I mapped every disqualifying condition and medication interaction that would route a member from async care to a required video visit — high blood pressure, current medications, and a set of clinical exclusions defined with staff physicians. Getting this branching logic right up front kept the later screens simple.

FigJam wireframe mapping disqualifying questions and clinical eligibility branches
Figma screens

Prototyping & testing

I built four separate prototypes in UserTesting.com and ran unmoderated sessions on each, varying two variables independently: when pricing appeared in the flow, and whether both visit types (or video only) were presented as eligible outcomes.

Showing pricing upfront tested better across the board — members wanted to know the cost before answering a dozen triage questions, regardless of which visit type they ended up eligible for.

Prototype testing flow diagram showing four UserTesting.com variants across the async visit flow
Figma screens

Final designs

The shipped flow surfaces pricing on the very first screen, walks members through condition-specific questions, and — when a member's answers indicate they're not a safe fit for async care — redirects them into a video visit with a clear, reassuring explanation rather than a dead end.

PlushCare landing page with Real Doctors, Flexible Care messaging Condition-specific triage questions in the async visit flow
Eligibility results screen showing both video visit and message-based care options Eligibility results screen showing video visit as the only option