From cfcb84dfac03f5454f272c5c74b2c34325a5d2dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jill Russo Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:09:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] Adding user research insights, plus "trust" tweak Included insights from user research board that were relevant to the changes made in that iteration. Updated "Trust" to "trust" per NHS style guide. --- app/views/design-histories/v1.html | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/views/design-histories/v1.html b/app/views/design-histories/v1.html index e1d0725..b924471 100644 --- a/app/views/design-histories/v1.html +++ b/app/views/design-histories/v1.html @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@

Things we changed

@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@

Things we kept or tweaked

Users want context beyond product performance

@@ -122,8 +122,12 @@

Embracing evaluation variety

How it tested

-

User research here

- +

Selected user research insights

+ From 53e4188538f15a1a8c004a8b0fd818f19610c630 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jill Russo Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 14:15:13 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] User research insights Added user research section with insights from the user research board that seemed most relevant to the updates discussed --- app/views/design-histories/v2.html | 13 +++++++------ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/views/design-histories/v2.html b/app/views/design-histories/v2.html index 5101d9c..6cdf8c5 100644 --- a/app/views/design-histories/v2.html +++ b/app/views/design-histories/v2.html @@ -95,14 +95,15 @@

Multi-product evaluations supported

How it tested

-

Summary:

+

Selected user research insights

+
  • Users recognised the need to share multiple products and the importance of providing context around their evaluations (for example, department and scale information).
    • +
  • At least one participant flagged a concern that breaches of confidentiality could occur when sharing evaluations
    • +
  • Users raised risks of misunderstandings around words like “evaluation”, “study” and “trial”, which have context-specific connotations.
    • +
  • Users had insights about friction they might experience when filling in the fields on this page, including that an evaluation lead may not always be a clinician; that the date of an evaluation may sometimes we difficult to pinpoint.
    • +
  • Users showed interest in understanding why a trust did NOT procure a product.
    • + From a64867148ecc969215845f510f5972cb1f8bf893 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jill Russo Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 15:13:43 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Trust fix Updating Trust to trust to reflect NHS style guidance --- app/views/design-histories/v0.html | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/views/design-histories/v0.html b/app/views/design-histories/v0.html index 29e2337..0854378 100644 --- a/app/views/design-histories/v0.html +++ b/app/views/design-histories/v0.html @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@

    Initial assumptions from discovery

    The recommendations from the discovery were:

    1. Develop a product value information service to address unmet information needs
      2. -
    2. Improve sharing of data between Trusts, currently via informal information sharing networks
      3. +
    3. Improve sharing of data between trusts, currently via informal information sharing networks
    4. Improve standards of procurement commercial literacy and ensure teams have correct skills
      5. -
    5. Create standards for evidence provided by suppliers, and improve data collection from Trusts
      6. +
    6. Create standards for evidence provided by suppliers, and improve data collection from trusts

    This Alpha phase was kicked off to address recommendation 1. We pivoted to include 2 as well. 3 and 4 have been spun up into separate teams.

    From 2851d75fe9656304b55239f2d9d7dda78385d749 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jill Russo Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 15:14:27 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Third iteration user research insights Added a few user research insights that seemed most relevant to the themes discussed --- app/views/design-histories/v3.html | 17 +++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/app/views/design-histories/v3.html b/app/views/design-histories/v3.html index 8d6a7c3..b5458c3 100644 --- a/app/views/design-histories/v3.html +++ b/app/views/design-histories/v3.html @@ -106,15 +106,20 @@

    Content design

  • clearer calls to action on some pages, to avoid confusion
  • consistency and accuracy of language throughout
  • colour coding of tags being limited to procurement decisions only (given confusion from users and potential for mixed meaning)
    • -
  • reduced text in some places to simplify and avoid redundancy
    • +
  • reduced text in some places to simplify, communicate key points more clearly and avoid redundancy
    • -

    User research findings

    - -

    Key insights from procurement research

    - -

    Findings here

    +

    User research

    + +

    Selected user research insights

    +
      +
    • The section about the NHS 10-year plan confused some users as they weren’t sure of its relevance.
      • +
    • Users were generally positive about the benefits-related text on the homepage.
      • +
    • Evaluation uploading was mostly considered straightforward, but research highlighted the fact that it only covered “evaluations” and not other types of documents.
      • +
    • Users felt the filters would be useful, especially filtering based on trust type and product category.
      • +
    • Users liked the badges but were sometimes unclear on the colour system.
      • +