Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose Cataract surgery has a steep learning curve, requiring timely and structured feedback to support effective skill acquisition during ophthalmology residency. Our objective was to develop a structured cataract surgery feedback tool that supports a succinct and humanistic debrief following a learning opportunity. Methods A development and acceptability project employing qualitative methods, including observational fieldwork, interviews, and thematic analysis, was carried out at two tertiary eye centers (February to May 2025, United Kingdom). CataRANT, a five-component feedback tool (Context, Analyze, Teach, Apply, Rant), was developed during a single ideation session using design thinking principles and experiential learning theory. Ophthalmology attendings with formal cataract trainer roles were purposively sampled and invited to provide feedback on cataRANT in training-approved theatres. Results Of 16 scheduled theatre sessions, 10 (62.5%) were observed. A formal educational debrief between educator and trainee occurred in only 3 of 10 sessions (30%), compared with a team safety debrief in 9 of 10 (90%); all three educational debriefs was initiated by the resident rather than the educator. Ten semi-structured interviews yielded four themes: challenges of curriculum implementation, timing of feedback, target audience, and surgical mentorship. All educators interpreted cataRANT in under one minute, with favorable acceptability throughout. Conclusions CataRANT provided a brief, memorable structure that surgical educators found acceptable and quick to interpret and valued for supporting educator-trainee dialogue. The feedback principles may extend to other specialties where debrief is integral to the educational cycle and high-volume lists are becoming routine. Validation among ophthalmology residents is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scantling‐Birch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: