The systems, pilots, and projects I've built to support the Unicorns who do the healing work.
The projects below span provider onboarding, system transitions, quality improvement, and pilot design — each representing a different type of initiative within a national outpatient behavioral health network. Click any card to read the full case study, including condensed previews of the original project documents.
New Unicorns were entering the Collective overwhelmed. Survey data pointed to a process that was clunky and hard to navigate. This initiative redesigned onboarding from the ground up.
When the Collective migrated to a new record-keeping system, Unicorns needed support to make the transition without disrupting their care work. This initiative owned the provider-facing rollout.
A structured pilot program designed to help Unicorns improve documentation quality, encounter completion, and measurement-based care, with real support built into every step.
A creative solution to two problems at once: employed Unicorns had unused hours, and the consult line was overwhelmed. This pilot built a new coverage model, and evaluated it honestly.
This initiative was created to redesign the Collective's onboarding process after repeated survey feedback described it as difficult to navigate and overwhelming for new Unicorns. Providers reported struggling to retain the volume of information required to begin delivering services confidently. The goal was to simplify onboarding, improve how information was delivered, and lay the groundwork for future efforts to cohort Unicorns for more targeted support.
New Unicorns arrived eager and ready, but the trail into the Collective was tangled. Tasks were scattered, timing was off, and by the time they reached their first clients, many felt underprepared. The process had grown organically over time, and no one had stepped back to ask whether it actually worked.
I co-led this project, sharing planning and execution responsibilities with a partner from Operations. I was specifically responsible for reviewing survey data, mapping existing workflows, coordinating with the external onboarding software vendor, and leading the redesign of LMS courses and onboarding surveys.
The redesigned path reduced early friction for new Unicorns and improved knowledge retention. The simplified process also served as a necessary foundation for a subsequent cohorting initiative. Feedback from newly onboarded Unicorns showed improved clarity around expectations from day one.
Co-project leadership · Process design · Vendor management · LMS development · Survey design · Cross-functional collaboration · Change management
Onboarding survey data and direct provider feedback consistently described the existing onboarding process as difficult to navigate and overly complex. This project was also designed as a deliberate precursor to a future initiative grouping providers into structured cohorts.
| In Scope | Out of Scope |
|---|---|
| Survey review & workflow redesign | New LMS platform implementation |
| Vendor coordination (monthly) | Launch of future cohorting initiative |
| LMS course creation/updates | Compensation or staffing changes |
| Survey redesign & handoff docs | Credentialing process redesign |
| Phase | Timing |
|---|---|
| Discovery & Assessment | Month 1 |
| Design & Planning | Months 1–2 |
| Build & Configuration | Months 2–4 |
| Launch & Monitoring | Months 4–5 |
| Handoff & Close | Month 6 |
24 tasks across 5 phases. Ownership color key: Lead = me, Shared = co-owned with Ops, Vendor = external coordination.
Monthly check-ins with the onboarding software vendor, covering platform status, troubleshooting, and upcoming features relevant to onboarding.
A regular vendor cadence meant new platform capabilities could be evaluated and adopted as they became available, rather than discovered after the fact, and kept data reporting needs visible and addressed proactively.
Transitioned to Standard Operations No formal evaluation was required; the project concluded with handoff once workflows stabilized.
Final deliverables transitioned to Operations: revised onboarding workflow, simplified system configurations, LMS courses, redesigned surveys, and documented scalability recommendations.
When the Collective transitioned to a new record-keeping system, the goal was to ensure Unicorns could make the shift without disruption to their care work. The broader implementation was led separately; this initiative owned everything on the provider-facing side: readiness, training, communications, and post-launch support.
A new record system meant new workflows, new documentation expectations, and a learning curve during an already busy season of care. Without dedicated provider support, confusion would quietly compound, and care quality would be the thing that suffered.
I served as Project Coordinator for the provider support workstream, collaborating alongside the primary implementation lead. My responsibilities focused entirely on Unicorn-facing components of the rollout.
Unicorns entered go-live with clear expectations and a defined support pathway. Common issues were triaged quickly and escalated appropriately. Provider support needs stabilized and were successfully transitioned into standard operations.
Project coordination · Training design · Provider communications · Escalation workflow design · Stakeholder collaboration · Change management · Post-launch support
The Collective was migrating to a new record-keeping system. The overall implementation was led separately; this charter scoped the provider-facing workstream specifically, ensuring Unicorns could transition without disruption to active care work.
| In Scope | Out of Scope |
|---|---|
| Provider training & communications | System build & configuration |
| Go-live support & escalation design | Data migration |
| Post-launch stabilization | Vendor contract negotiation |
Rollout proceeded in cohorts rather than a single launch date, with each cohort receiving training materials 3+ weeks ahead of its go-live, followed by weekly office hours through stabilization.
Roles: Impl. Lead = overall implementation lead · Me = provider support coordinator. R = Responsible, A = Accountable, C = Consulted, I = Informed.
| Task | Impl. Lead | Me |
|---|---|---|
| Define overall scope & timeline | A | I |
| Assess provider readiness | C | A/R |
| Identify training needs | I | A/R |
| Design escalation pathways | C | A/R |
| Task | Impl. Lead | Me |
|---|---|---|
| Develop training materials | I | A/R |
| Provider communications | C | A/R |
| System build & configuration | A/R | — |
| Manage go-live questions | I | A/R |
| Escalate system-level issues | A | R |
| Task | Impl. Lead | Me |
|---|---|---|
| Monitor adoption trends | I | A/R |
| Coordinate follow-up support | I | A/R |
| Refine training materials | I | A/R |
| Transition to standard ops | A | R |
Transitioned to Standard Operations Provider support needs stabilized cohort by cohort, with ownership transferred to standard support channels once each group cleared its go-live window.
Final deliverables transitioned to standard operations: provider training and communication resources, escalation workflows, and documented recommendations for improving provider experience and adoption.
This initiative was created to design and launch a pilot provider development program focused on improving documentation quality, encounter completion, and use of measurement-based care across the Collective's network of Unicorns. The pilot was built in response to variability in provider performance and the need for a more proactive, supportive approach before considering a broader rollout.
Inconsistencies in how Unicorns documented their work were quietly affecting care quality across the Collective. The gaps weren't about skill. They were about unclear expectations, limited feedback, and a lack of structure around growth. A one-size-fits-all approach wasn't going to work.
I served as the Clinical Consult Manager and project lead, responsible for directing the initiative from planning through pilot evaluation. I defined scope and success metrics, coordinated cross-functional stakeholders, designed provider workflows and communications, and oversaw execution of the pilot cohort.
The 90-day pilot wrapped with a 95.4% graduation rate among eligible providers, with audit "Not Achieved" rates dropping roughly 15 points across both intake and progress notes. The full evaluation findings are below.
Project leadership · Pilot design · Workflow automation · Performance metrics · Provider coaching · Stakeholder alignment · Program evaluation
Variability in Unicorn performance metrics signaled a need for a more structured, proactive support framework. This pilot tested a defined, supported intervention before committing to a broader rollout.
| In Scope | Out of Scope |
|---|---|
| Cohort identification & benchmarks | Full organizational rollout |
| Automated communication workflows | Clinical supervision changes |
| Support pathways & feedback surveys | EHR configuration changes |
| Phase | Timing |
|---|---|
| Initiation & Planning | Oct – Nov 2025 |
| Design & Build | Nov – Dec 2025 |
| Pilot Launch (V1) | Jan 2026 |
| Execution & Monitoring | Jan – Mar 2026 |
| Evaluation & Close | Apr 2026 |
Defined benchmarks used to identify which Unicorns received targeted support during the pilot, and the audit structure used to track progress.
| Metric | Benchmark |
|---|---|
| Documentation audit score | "Achieved" on Intake & Progress Notes |
| Encounter completion rate | 75%+ within 72-hour window |
| MBC completion rate | 75%+ within 24-hour session window |
Modify & Scale The pilot demonstrated strong proof of concept.
| Metric | Result |
|---|---|
| Active cohort (Month 1) | 123 Unicorns |
| Received at least one audit | 95 |
| Eligible for graduation | 87 |
| Graduated | 83 (95.4%) |
| Score | Intake 1 | Intake 2 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Achieved | 60.3% | 76.7% | +16.4 pts |
| Not Achieved | 21.9% | 6.8% | -15.1 pts |
This initiative piloted a new model for staffing the Collective's consult line by using employed Unicorns during their unfilled hours to support contracted Unicorns with clinical questions. The pilot addressed two problems simultaneously: underutilized employed provider time and an overwhelmed consult line managed by a single clinical manager.
Employed Unicorns were being paid for hours that often went unused. Meanwhile, the consult line, the lifeline for over 1,000 contracted Unicorns with clinical questions, was running on one person. Employed Unicorns had also been asking for more variety in their work beyond direct client care.
I served as the Project Lead in my role as Consult Manager. I was responsible for designing the pilot model, building training and procedures, coordinating stakeholders, managing execution, and conducting the formal evaluation at the end of the year.
The pilot ran from March through December 2023 and concluded with a formal evaluation. While it demonstrated some benefit, including added variety for employed Unicorns, the model was ultimately discontinued due to scheduling inconsistencies and a lower-than-anticipated volume of resolved questions. The evaluation and lessons learned were documented and informed future consult line planning.
Project leadership · Pilot design · Training development · Scheduling systems · Stakeholder coordination · Formal evaluation · Lessons-learned documentation
Employed Unicorns were salaried but frequently had unused hours due to scheduling gaps and no-shows. Meanwhile, the consult line serving 1,000+ contracted Unicorns was staffed by a single clinical manager. This charter scoped a pilot to address both problems through a new coverage model.
| In Scope | Out of Scope |
|---|---|
| Training curriculum & escalation design | Permanent staffing changes |
| Flexible scheduling model | Compensation restructuring |
| Formal pilot evaluation | Consult line software replacement |
| Phase | Timing |
|---|---|
| Planning & Design | Jan – Feb 2023 |
| Pilot Launch & Execution | Mar – Dec 2023 |
| Formal Evaluation | Dec 2023 |
Contracted Unicorn submits question → Employed Unicorn checks scope guide → In-scope: respond directly → Out-of-scope: escalate to Project Lead, with contracted provider notified of timing.
Discontinued Right call, well made, based on evidence gathered throughout the pilot.
Scheduling proved too inconsistent to create reliable coverage, and question resolution rates were lower than anticipated given scope limitations. Continuing would have meant maintaining a system generating more management overhead than relief.