Count the follow-up work before adding another form

What we found in the news

An AHRQ summary of workflow research from 2010 (opens in a new tab) remains useful when considering a new digital process. The project examined how health information technology fits the work of smaller ambulatory practices. Its opening observation is direct:

health IT must be designed to fit specific contexts

The summary also describes limits in the available research. We take it as a reason to examine local work carefully, rather than evidence that a new form or system will automatically save time.

Why this matters to us

A form can look wonderfully tidy from the point of view of the person requesting the information. It may be less tidy for the colleague who has to find it, explain it, check a missing answer, and decide which record to update.

That follow-up work belongs in the decision to introduce the form. Otherwise, a small administrative change can quietly create a much larger task.

At genus, we are interested in the whole sequence: what prompts the request, who responds, how staff review it, and what happens next. Completing a field is only one moment in that sequence.

Follow one request all the way through

Consider a hypothetical day program adding a monthly preference update. The new form asks participants which activities they would enjoy. Its purpose is sensible. But the existing booking conversation already gathers some of this information, and no one has agreed who will compare the answers.

Walk through one fictional example before introducing the process. A participant chooses a new activity, a staff member notices that the preferred session is full, and someone needs to discuss alternatives. Where does that work appear? Who makes contact? How does the team know the conversation happened?

Include the less convenient cases: an incomplete response, a preference that changes, a person who wants to answer in conversation, or an answer that contradicts an older record. These are ordinary parts of service work, not unusual exceptions to ignore until launch.

Ask what the new information will change

For every proposed field, identify the decision it supports. A question may be interesting without being necessary for the service being arranged. Another may be essential, but already available in a record the team is authorized to use.

Check before assuming that information can simply be copied or shared. Permissions, purpose and the need for current confirmation still matter. Reducing duplication should not mean removing a conversation in which the person can explain that something has changed.

Where two processes gather the same information, ask their owners to agree which is responsible for maintaining it. A new shared rule may be more useful than another reminder to keep several versions up to date.

Include the work after submission

During a small trial, ask staff to note the types of follow-up the process creates. Avoid turning this into surveillance of individual speed. The aim is to understand work that the design has made necessary.

Perhaps staff spend time locating the responsible coordinator. Perhaps a confirmation message is unclear, so participants call to check. Perhaps an unanswered question requires a private conversation rather than another automated prompt.

Use those observations to revise the process. It may need fewer questions, clearer language, a visible review stage or a different way for people to contribute. Agree how pending requests will be noticed, and what happens when the usual reviewer is away.

A form that is quick to submit but leaves a queue of unresolved work has not completed its job.

What this means for the people you serve

People should have a fair chance to update what matters to them without repeatedly reconstructing the same information. They should also know whether an answer is a preference, a request or a confirmed arrangement. Clear expectations protect choice and reduce the risk of someone planning around something the service has not agreed.

The genus connection

Current genus intake and profile workflows can support staff comparison and selected updates where those modules are enabled. This is reviewed work: incoming information should not be assumed to overwrite an existing record or complete every follow-up automatically.

The partner portal and insights (opens in a new tab) can provide a place for configured operational tasks. The starting point is still the organization's process, the person's choices and the staff responsibility for the next step.

One question for your next team meeting

If we add this form, who will do the work that begins after someone submits it?