Saturday, November 7, 2026

12:00 PM - 12:15 PM

Ballroom 1 and 2

---

Overview

Navdeep Kaur

---

Details

Background: Feedback supports learners by reflecting on their performance, identifying areas for growth, and developing clinical competence. Its effectiveness depends on clear communication, appropriate timing, and a supportive learning environment. In orthoptic education, short-term clinical placements and limited supervisor contact may make it difficult for supervisors to provide consistent, personalised feedback. While research has explored supervisors’ experiences in other clinical disciplines, little is known about these experiences in orthoptics. Methods: Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, semi-structured online interviews (20–30 minutes) using a guide informed by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW/COM-B) model were conducted with eight orthoptists working in the ophthalmology outpatient clinic at a large metropolitan teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia (June 2025). Inclusion criteria required current practice, orthoptic board registration, ≥1 year supervision experience, and supervision within the previous 24 months. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis, with independent coding and regular team discussion to enhance rigour. Results: Four major themes emerged that framed the feedback experiences of orthoptic supervisors: 1) perceptions and approaches to feedback, 2) challenges in the outpatient setting, 3) the emotional weight of feedback, and 4) professional development. Supervisors saw feedback as both practical and personal, offering guidance on clinical skills while supporting students’ confidence and development. Feedback was often delivered informally and shaped by intuition; however, time pressures, competing duties, and unclear roles made it inconsistent. Supervisors described the emotional strain of giving constructive feedback, particularly when students were defensive or disengaged, which sometimes reduced their confidence. Informal peer support and personal experience were central to developing feedback skills, while formal training was limited and departmental culture varied widely. Some supervisors valued clear frameworks and resources, while others relied primarily on trial and error. Discussion/Conclusions: Feedback in orthoptic supervision was interpreted as a balance between technical skill development and relationship-building, where supervisors actively shaped students’ confidence, identity, and engagement. Its effectiveness was influenced by more than individual practice, reflecting the interaction between supervisors’ skills, workplace structures, and emotional dynamics. Unclear responsibility for feedback and inconsistent departmental cultures reduced opportunities for timely, meaningful exchanges, while reliance on experience rather than structured development limited consistency. Supervisors’ confidence was closely tied to student responses, yet challenges were often seen as student-dependent rather than linked to feedback approach. Interpreted through Bandura's self-efficacy theory and the BCW/COM-B model, these findings suggest that feedback quality is shaped by both individual and system-level factors, highlighting the need for clearer roles, supportive cultures, and ongoing development to enable more effective and engaging feedback.

---

Speaker