Workflow design · Product operations · 2026

A safer path from case submission to review.

I redesigned the intake and distribution system for the hematology/oncology tumor board at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, replacing fragmented email handoffs with structured, scheduled, and traceable operations.

10 fields

standardized at submission

3 rounds

scheduled distribution cadence

No PHI

attached to notification emails

The context

A multidisciplinary review depended on a manual inbox

The tumor board reviews cases submitted by clinicians and physicians across hospital systems. Requests, including outside submissions, were emailed to a practice administrator, who had to monitor a continuous stream of messages, identify missing patient details, clarify the intended meeting date, and manually transfer each case into the working list.

The problem

Unstructured handoffs created avoidable operational risk

Email made every submission different. Required information could be omitted, requests for future meetings could be mixed with immediate cases, and cases could be overlooked during manual transcription or list preparation. The administrator also had to repeatedly compile and send updated patient lists as the meeting approached.

My role

Map the workflow, standardize intake, and automate distribution

I designed the end-to-end future-state process and implementation instructions using Microsoft Forms, Excel, Teams, SharePoint, Outlook, and Power Automate. I translated administrator and clinician needs into required data fields, date controls, folder conventions, automated notifications, and an operating cadence the team could maintain.

Design principle

Automate the handoff without removing human oversight

The system automates collection, population, and notification while preserving the coordinator’s responsibility to review entries and filter by the requested tumor board date. This keeps clinical scheduling decisions visible and controlled rather than hiding them inside a fully automated workflow.

Intake design

Make completeness the default.

A Microsoft Form replaced free-form email with ten consistent inputs. The requested date is captured as a true date field, while radiology and pathology needs use controlled choices.

  1. 01Requested tumor board date
  2. 02Presenter name
  3. 03Patient name
  4. 04Medical record number
  5. 05Date of birth
  6. 06Diagnosis
  7. 07Radiology review
  8. 08Pathology review
  9. 09Clinical details
  10. 10Questions or concerns

Operating cadence

Three deliberate releases replace repeated ad hoc updates.

After filtering entries by the requested tumor board date, the coordinator saves a copy into the corresponding SharePoint folder. Adding the file triggers the appropriate Power Automate email.

01

First preliminary

Friday · 12:00 PM

Creates early visibility into the developing case list.

02

Second preliminary

Monday · 12:00 PM

Provides an updated list before the final submission window.

03

Final list

Tuesday · 2:30 PM

Distributes the finalized set for tumor board preparation.

Process map

A visible handoff from request to multidisciplinary review.

The future-state flow makes each owner and automated handoff explicit, including the three scheduled list releases that converge into one secure notification path.

Clinician Automation Practice administrator

Horizontal scroll reveals the full branching flow on smaller screens.

Workflow comparison

Reduce the places where a case can fall through.

Before, email-dependent

  • Cases arrive across ongoing email threads
  • Required information varies by sender
  • Future-date requests require manual tracking
  • Patient lists are transcribed and redistributed manually

After, structured and traceable

  • Every case enters through one structured form
  • Responses populate a central Excel source
  • Requested date supports controlled scheduling
  • Folder events trigger consistent link-based notifications

Success framework

Measure reliability, not just automation.

A future evaluation should test whether the system improves completeness, timeliness, and administrative effort while preserving appropriate human review. These are recommended measures, not reported outcomes.

  • Submission completeness
  • Cases requiring follow-up
  • On-time list distribution
  • Cases routed to requested date
  • Administrator preparation time
  • Missed or duplicate case reports

Product outcome

One source of truth for who was submitted, what was needed, and when the case should be reviewed.

The delivered artifact included setup instructions and a process map so the workflow could be operated consistently after handoff. This case study describes the designed system; it does not claim measured clinical outcomes.