Your website is often the first place a clinician, a procurement lead or an end customer forms an opinion of your company. And far too often, it’s built to look good to the marketing team rather than to actually work for any of those three audiences.
I’ve made the point before that medical device companies can have up to three audiences, not one, and that the one word summing up what marketing requires is clarity. A website is where that principle gets tested hardest, because unlike a piece of content you can write specifically for a clinician or specifically for procurement, a homepage has to work for whoever lands on it. One homepage trying to speak to everyone tends to speak clearly to no one.
Why a generic UX checklist doesn’t fit MedTech
Standard website audits focus on the basics. Load speed, mobile responsiveness, clear calls to action. All of that still matters here. But MedTech adds constraints most generic audit checklists never touch. Claims are restricted by regulatory frameworks. The buying committee genuinely has different information needs depending on who’s sitting at the table. And the content has to satisfy clinical scepticism and procurement risk-aversion on the same domain, sometimes on pages sitting one click apart.
Audit for three audiences separately
Treat this as three mini-audits, not one generic pass over the site.
For the clinician. Can they find clinical evidence fast? Remember, they may genuinely be doing this on a five-minute break between patients. Is the workflow-fit and integration story clear, or does the site skip straight to features without explaining how the device actually sits inside their day? Does the site respect their time, or bury the substance under marketing language and adjectives? Clinicians are sales-sceptical and they’ll interrogate what they find for evidence, so anything that reads as fluff gets filtered out immediately.
For procurement. Is there a clear path to compliance documentation, total cost of ownership information, and vendor stability signals? Can they self-serve the risk-mitigation content they need without being forced to book a call first? Procurement is rational and risk-averse. They’re not evaluating the site emotionally, and a site that only offers “talk to sales” as the next step is asking them to take on risk before they’ve been given the information to assess it.
For the end customer, where relevant. Is there a distinct journey that doesn’t force them through clinical or procurement content meant for someone else entirely? If your device has a genuine end-customer audience alongside the clinician and procurement, this journey needs its own front door, not a footnote off the clinical page.
Navigation and information architecture
This is where brand architecture thinking applies directly to a website, even a single-brand one. The same principle that separates a branded house from a house of brands applies at the level of site structure. Does the navigation give each audience a clear, findable front door, or does everyone land on the same generic menu and have to guess where to go? A clinician shouldn’t have to wade through procurement-facing TCO content to find clinical evidence, and procurement shouldn’t have to dig through clinical detail to find a compliance document. Confusion is the enemy of results, and a poorly structured menu is one of the most common places that confusion starts.
Content and messaging audit
Check whether each page is actually speaking to the audience it’s meant for. Evidence-first language for clinicians. Risk, compliance and ROI language for procurement. Minimal bleed between the two on the same page. This is the same translation discipline that applies to turning a dense clinical white paper into content a clinician will actually read, short clinical summaries with the headline finding up front, scannable structure, no press-release tone, no salesy language. If your clinical pages read like they were written for a regulator, or your procurement pages read like a brochure, the audience reading them will notice and disengage.
Conversion paths and calls to action
Check whether the natural buyer journey is reflected in what each audience is actually offered to do next. A clinician who’s just found the evidence they needed is not necessarily ready for a sales call, they may be ready to reference the device to a colleague, download a case study, or flag it to a procurement contact. Procurement may want documentation up front, before any conversation happens at all. If every page on the site funnels to the same “book a demo” button regardless of who’s reading it, you’re asking every audience to move at the same pace, when they genuinely don’t.
Compliance and trust signals
AHPRA advertising guidelines and TGA and ARTG constraints show up directly on-site, in claims language, evidence citations, and required disclaimers. This needs to be built into the page from the start rather than bolted on after legal review, and it can be done without making the site feel legalistic or cold. Done well, visible regulatory discipline is itself a trust signal, particularly to a procurement audience assessing your operational maturity as a vendor, not just your device.
Technical and structural basics
The standard checklist items still matter regardless of industry. Page speed, mobile experience, accessibility. Increasingly worth adding to this list is how discoverable and citable your content is to AI tools, given clinicians and procurement contacts are now researching this way too, often well before they ever land on your site directly.
What the audit is really checking
A website audit for a MedTech company isn’t really about design polish. It’s about checking whether the site does the job of communicating with clarity to three different people who need three different things from the same domain. Don’t hide your good news under a bushel. If the evidence, the compliance documentation and the trust signals are already there, the audit’s job is to make sure each audience can actually find the ones meant for them.
