User research gave us what planning alone couldn’t: a clear view into the day-to-day realities of our users. What initially appeared simple often turned out to be more layered and context-dependent.

For example, we assumed that most therapists would operate within a single practice or platform. In reality, many providers divide their time across multiple settings — including private practices, hospitals, and telehealth platforms. As one therapist shared:

“I see clients in two practices and do supervision in a third. My calendar is a mix of everything.”

This made it clear that availability tracking and scheduling needed to support multiple contexts, not just a single system.

We also saw that responsibilities within a practice can vary significantly. While some therapists focus solely on client sessions, others take on administrative work, supervise peers, or assist with billing. Many practices also employ dedicated non-clinical staff for roles like client onboarding and invoice management. Rigid role definitions didn’t reflect how work actually happens.

“Sometimes I wear three hats — therapist, admin, and clinical supervisor. It really depends on the day.”

This led us to rethink how permissions, visibility, and user roles should function — shifting from fixed templates to more flexible configurations that can support blended responsibilities.

Billing workflows also surfaced as a key area of friction. Many therapists mentioned needing to double-check insurance codes, correct errors, and switch between different tools just to complete billing tasks.

“The systems don’t talk to each other. I have to cross-reference so much, it slows down everything.”

These insights helped us better understand how workflows differ based on context, team structure, and individual preferences. Instead of building for a theoretical “standard flow,” we learned the importance of designing for the practical variations that show up in real-world use.