@burke Please, when you get a chance, take a look. I have updated the Requirements and the mock-up based on your feedback
Thanks for the mockup @veronica.
The search box says “Search for a drug or ordeset”, so, instead of a separate non-searchable section of pre-defined ordersets, I would expect order sets to be found amongst the orderables (in this case, Drugs) when searching. To help users identify them, it might help to adopt a naming convention like adding “Menu” to the concept names (e.g., “Hypertension Menu”, “ART Initiation Menu”, etc.). This would also allow a user to search for the word “menu” to find all ordersets.
Carbon Design would recommend keeping radio buttons for groups of choices where only one item can be selected. Carbon’s recommendation for allowing an empty selection would be to add a “None” option; however, this would make the UI messy. An acceptable alternative supported by Carbon Design would be to add a small/subtle “Clear selection” link as an action label near the radio button group.[ref]
I can guarantee there will be a need to interject informational text into ordersets (e.g., guidance on when to choose one option over another). From the earliest designs, we had anticipated optional titles & comments for orderset members to allow for such commentary.
Assuming we support order templates within ordersets (e.g., “chlorthalidone 12.5 mg once daily” instead of just “chlorthalidone”), we want to make sure we adopt the same approach for order templates used anywhere else. That is, we don’t want to end up with different approaches to order templating in different parts of the application.
FYI - there have been a lot of design discussions on order sets over the years. For example:
- Order Set designs in 2011
- Supporting ordersets for orders (TRUNK-4794) in 2016
- Orderset discussion in 2018
- Lots of discussion on order templates for ordersets here, here, and here in 2022
Fair warning, ordersets can be very useful in many situations, including decision support. It won’t be long before we will want ordersets that are not constrained to one type of order. For example, it’s very common for ordersets to be defined that include tests, drugs, nursing orders, etc. and we will (like all EMRs that have preceded us) want to support a generic/universal order field that is not constrained to one type of order.
There’s a lot more to ordersets (e.g., supporting inclusion & exclusion criteria for entries), but – given that we’ve been dreaming of ordersets in OpenMRS for 20 years – I’ll bite my lip and try to stay focused on an MVP. 
Thanks so much @burke for this feedback - very useful. Let me relook at it again based on these suggestions and prior conversations.