Remote Patient Monitoring
A unified cardiac device monitoring platform that merged data from multiple manufacturers into a single interface — enabling physicians to monitor 600% more patients without losing clinical detail.
One physician.
Seven dashboards.
Patients with implantable cardiac devices — pacemakers, ICDs, loop recorders — generate continuous monitoring data. That data sits inside manufacturer-specific systems: Medtronic's Carelink, Abbott's Merlin, Boston Scientific's Latitude. Each with a separate login. Each with a separate interface. Each with a different way of expressing the same clinical information.
A physician managing 50 monitored patients wasn't spending time on medicine. They were spending time on system-switching. Alert management was fragmented. Patient notes lived in different places. Prescription reminders had no centralized view. The clinical picture that should have been visible at a glance required navigating a different platform for every device manufacturer a patient happened to have.
The challenge: design a unified monitoring platform that could ingest data from multiple manufacturers, present it in a standardized interface, support physician-patient communication, and generate PDF clinical reports — all within a secure, HIPAA-compliant architecture.
Fragmentation costs patient safety
When a cardiac alert fires on one manufacturer's system but a physician is reviewing another, delays happen. The unified view wasn't a convenience feature — it was a patient safety intervention.
Documentation was scattered
Clinical notes, prescription reminders, and appointment history lived in different systems or in paper records. A single patient's full clinical picture required assembling information from four sources.
Multiple data schemas, one interface
Cardiac device data from different manufacturers uses different formats, naming conventions, and alert thresholds. The platform had to normalize these into a unified schema without losing clinical precision.
Designing for
clinical precision.
Healthcare UX demands a different standard. The users are clinicians making consequential decisions. The information is complex, regulated, and time-sensitive. The margin for confusion is zero.
I began with user research and competitive analysis — understanding how cardiologists and device coordinators actually work, what information they reached for first, and what mental models they used to triage alerts. The research revealed a consistent priority hierarchy: alert severity first, device status second, patient history third.
More patients.
Same precision.
The 600% increase in concurrent monitoring capacity wasn't achieved by cutting corners. It was achieved by removing the friction that made monitoring one patient in four systems feel like monitoring four patients.
Clinicians described the unified view as transformative — not because it did something new, but because it made something that had always been possible finally feel manageable. The reduction in alert response time came directly from the information hierarchy redesign: the most urgent information was no longer buried.
The physician-patient communication feature created a documented interaction record that had never existed in the fragmented system. Notes, reminders, and follow-up actions were now part of the same workflow as monitoring — not a separate task to be completed elsewhere.