Clinical Feedback as a Relational and Organisational Process: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Experiences in Operating Room Environment

Farzad Abaszadeh,1,2 Ali Asghar Hayat,3 Mobin Mottahedi,4,5 Soolmaz Zare31Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; 2Department of Operating Room Technology, Faculty of Allied Medicine, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran; 3Clinical Education Research Center, Department of Medical Education, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; 4Department of Operating Room, School of Allied Medicine, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, Iran; 5Clinical Research Development Unit, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahroud University of Medical Sciences, Shahroud, IranCorrespondence: Soolmaz Zare, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Conference Halls (Sina and Sadra), Zand Street – Neshat Street, 2nd Floor, Center for Educational Development and Studies, Shiraz, 7134874689, Iran, Tel +989358488490, Email [email protected]: Clinical feedback is central to workplace learning in operating room education. While clinical feedback has been conceptualised as relational and context-dependent, less is known about how Operating Room Technology students perceive and experience it within the operating room learning environment.Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 17 Operating Room Technology students recruited through maximum variation purposive sampling from Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran. Data were collected between November 2025 and March 2026 and analysed using Graneheim and Lundman’s inductive content analysis. Trustworthiness was addressed using Lincoln and Guba’s criteria.Results: Five themes comprising 13 subcategories were identified: structural and executive framework of clinical feedback; perceived consequences of clinical feedback quality; harmful feedback practices and barriers; interaction and professionalism in feedback; and individual and professional competencies of instructors in feedback. Students described clinical feedback as most valuable when it was structured, timely, respectful, and dialogic, and perceived it as contributing to confidence, engagement, and professional identity. Delayed, vague, or humiliating clinical feedback was perceived to undermine confidence and psychological safety. Divergent accounts highlighted tensions between immediate intra-operative clinical feedback and workflow demands, as well as circumstances in which public safety-critical corrections were perceived as necessary.Conclusions: The findings suggest that clinical feedback in Operating Room Technology education is a multidimensional process perceived to be shaped by structural, relational, organisational, and educator-related factors. Rather than proposing a new conceptualisation, this study provides a context-specific understanding of how established clinical feedback principles are perceived and negotiated within the operating room learning environment. Strengthening educator capabilities, embedding structured clinical feedback approaches, and fostering psychologically safe learning environments may strengthen clinical education in Operating Room Technology programmes.Keywords: clinical feedback, workplace learning, operating room learning environment, psychological safety, feedback practices