Bad experience on a course?

Are you a tutor who is dealing with negative feedback?

I feel you. It's horrible being in the spotlight sometimes. Sending big hugs.

This guide is a working reference for tutors navigating negative feedback, which can be one of the toughest parts of the job as it is all about the outcomes of your course, some of which may have been intended, and some unexpected. Some comments might be valid and other comments, totally unreasonable. If you are a learner reading this, you might also find it useful to see what kind of feedback tutors can receive.

While it’s important to acknowledge and adapt based on fair criticism, it’s equally valid to advocate for the integrity of good pedagogy, broader professional learning, and the methods behind educating on the complexity of real-world practice. Sometimes complaints simply reflect misunderstandings about the scope and approach of a role (very common in travel health in particular) or of what a course 'should' involve. That is often out of the tutors control and can seem quite unfair. Other times, the feedback is entirely warranted, and lots can be learned from it for next time.

If you really care about what you're doing, negative feedback can be really tough to hear, and sometimes to understand and process it. But still be incredibly valuable at the same time.

It's particularly hard when:

• You think you did a good job and gave your very best, and then seemingly out of 'nowhere' a complaint you didn't expect lands.

• There has been a delay to receiving feedback so you are struggling to recall the session in question.

• The type of feedback appears as both a negative and a positive by separate delegates making it hard to know what was the right or wrong thing to do (e.g. "loved the interaction" Vs "too much chat").

• You were delivering a virtual course where it can be much harder to gauge satisfaction along the way, especially if cameras / mics have been off and people have remained quiet in the chat box. Sometimes you only really know how it went once the feedback forms start appearing.

• The solicited feedback came from an anonymous feedback form. Anonymity is great for getting frank feedback but at the same time its very faceless nature can invite particularly harsh comments.

• You were working for someone else. Often the criticism feels very public because someone else has received it first, and then you have additional bad feelings because you were representing that company so you feel like you let them down. It feels like 'everyone knows' your weak points and you often have no control over being able to liaise with the complainant to make it right again. You have further worries then about whether you will be employed by them again, and whether you are actually 'good enough', then the money worries come in ... and before you know it you are googling job searches for 'Costa Coffee'. What a rabbit hole of a spiraling situation in your head this can be!

• You or a delegate have had some sort of practical difficulty on the day on top, like a tech issue that has compounded the frustration or anger of a course delegate right from the off. The rest of the course will have been judged through already-annoyed eyes.

I have had lots of constructive (and not so constructive) feedback over the years and it still hits hard every time despite how many adaptations I have made to try to avoid the same complaints. The whole reason I'm inspired to write this section is because I'm currently feeling pretty deflated from a recent bit of negative feedback. The bottom line is you will never please everyone. That's the first thing to learn to accept as a tutor.

So, I've put together a bit of a guide to help you look behind common comments and reflect on them positively. Don't worry. you are not alone if you received bad feedback- and it can all be used for something positive in the end. I've personally cried for days over some feedback, but I would not be where I am without the extreme and brutal honesty of a disgruntled delegate or two over the years. It's helped me to understand what I need to do to be better at my role. And if you are teaching using any of my materials - please know that most of it has been designed around both good and bad feedback over time.

Look at the themes relevant to your own feedback situation to learn more....

Relevance to practice:

"Not the content I wanted ..."

Insufficient guidance

Level of depth wrong ...

Comments might look like:

• “I don’t do [insert thing here] so I didn't need it to be covered.”

• “I just wanted to know about [insert thing here] and everything else is irrelevant.”

• “That part wasn't directly related to what I do so it was a waste of time”

Common example from travel health courses: "I am a practice nurse and I only give NHS vaccines so why would I want to know about the others that I don't provide?" or "I work in a private clinic, why would I want to discuss the NHS vaccines?".

Rationale for complaint:

The people we are teaching are in clinical practice and are busy and naturally don’t want to waste time on areas they don’t directly deliver. But people don't always know what they need to know! And what they 'want' isn't necessarily the same as what they actually 'need'. There can also be misunderstandings about the scope and structure of a role or the education requirements around it. This is particularly common in travel health for instance, where the role straddles both private and NHS provision. An open course that could have both types of jobs on it will naturally contain information relevant to both types of role. It's understandable when people get frustrated that a course has to accommodate every scenario.

Some complaints however, simply reflect a narrow or inaccurate view of a clinicians role. For example, in travel health whether they administer a particular vaccine or not, they are still responsible for identifying risks and making appropriate referrals. Travel health, for example, is also not solely about administering vaccines—it includes advising, assessing risk, and recognising when a referral is needed. If you annoyed someone by essentially highlighting this, it's not wholly your fault that they don't like it.

Sometimes subjects are included in courses to give a more advanced knowledge of what goes on around the world as well as subjects that require refreshing on. Understanding broader international approaches is part of contextual awareness, especially for clinicians who may advise globally mobile patients. References to other practices are intended to highlight the differences in access and options – helping practitioners know when and where to signpost or refer.

Things to keep in mind while delivering - and make reference to - in order to avoid this complaint:

Courses not tailored to a single practice will always include a range of content to support wider contextual understanding. If a clinician wants highly specific training, a bespoke session may be more appropriate.Travel health guidance and competencies enforce that travel health courses should include content on both NHS and private vaccines. Afterall, private clinics do administer NHS vaccines (albeit, not for free), and NHS practices can also give private vaccines (and charge for them) if they choose to. And those that choose not to do a bit of everything should be able to refer appropriately. Private practice comparisons provide useful context and help NHS practitioners understand broader systems of care and vice versa. Non-vaccine aspects of travel health are also critical, as many travel-related risks are not vaccine-preventable. A comprehensive course should reflect this diversity. Try to ensure this is emphasised somewhere near the start!

Comments might look like:

• "It was too much of an overview - I wanted more details"

• "I needed more on [insert thing] and I still don't feel confident on it"

EXAMPLE: "I did an immunisation update but it didn't cover the specifics of each vaccine schedule"

Rationale for complaint:

This kind of complaint can come about on both foundation courses and updates. It is particularly interesting when it comes up on an 'update' course, as some delegates may not realise the difference between the two types of course. They may not feel confident with the basics, and may not have received structured training before. This creates a desire for more in-depth instruction rather than signposting or overviews. Tutors themselves also get frustrated by time constraints in courses and it can be hard to know where to devote time to. Sometimes people have unrealistic expectations of what you can actually fit into some of the short time slots we have with one another. Frustrating all round when it's a big topic you are covering.

However, in the example above, an update assumes a working knowledge of the core topics, and is not a full re-teaching of foundational knowledge. Updates are meant to complement clinical experience and support independent learning through signposting to official guidance (e.g. NaTHNaC, PGDs, Green Book guidance etc). Even on foundation courses, there are always going to baseline assumptions made about where people are starting off from, like already having a working knowledge of safeguarding or consent process for instance.

How to avoid this complaint:

Make it very clear how you are planning to teach the course at the start and set the scene around expectations for further learning. Sometimes, it's about 'knowing how to learn' or confidence around self directed learning that is lacking in some delegates and there's nothing wrong with throwing a bit of learning theory background in at the start. Teaching sessions often reference reliable clinical resources and signpost to further information, with the aim being that participants will then go on to use these in their practice to fill in any gaps in knowledge that they identify. Update courses in immunisation and travel health in particular, are designed to situate, reinforce and contextualise existing knowledge rather than replace comprehensive training. Live courses are a great opportunity for specific questions to be asked, and the true value of an update lies in its ability to prompt critical thinking and case-based reasoning though discussion and questioning. If a delegate feels that they need more of the basics then there are plenty of longer courses available and it is worth recommending further training or reading they can do if questions about 'the basics' crop up. Listen out for those more 'basic questions' and answer with 'shall we look at the guidance together to find out the answer to that' - even if you know the answer! Be a positive role model for self-education.

Looks like:

• “Too basic.”

• “Too advanced.”

• "Too much detail on [***], I already knew that and wanted more on other things"

Rationale for complaint: Every course will contain learners with different backgrounds and levels of experience. Some will have decades of experience; others may be newer to the role. Some may have strong team support back in work; others may work in isolation. This makes universal pitch accuracy very difficult. It's perfectly understandable why this is not easy to get right for everyone. Courses I find particularly challenging to deliver from this perspective, are ones that are on the line of an 'update'. The breadth of experience can be vast on those courses and update courses are often where this type of complaint comes up the most. Most courses that I teach prioritise clinical reasoning and contextual awareness over checklist-style content. It is normal for parts of the session to feel more or less deep depending on the learner’s experience (see section on Bloom).

How to avoid this complaint:

Encouraging questions and discussion is how learners themselves can tailor the session to their needs in real time. A tutor acknowledging and making very clear that this a common issue that crops up can help learners to understand that they can be active participants in their learning journey and they can help you to pitch it right by the questions they ask along the way. When I get a complaint like this I don't reflect on my content per se (as I know I am covering the subjects I am supposed to be covering) but I do reflect on how much interaction I encouraged or not in that session. I also reflect on how I can use the more experienced members of the groups to help the more junior ones with their participation. That way no one feels like their level of knowledge was irrelevant or ignored. I definitely don't always get it right though! Easier said than done sometimes.

Criticism on credibility of tutor or sources

Looks like:

• "I don't like the use of personal examples, anecdotes, or media references"

• "That tutor doesn't work in my area of practice so how do they know what it's like"

Rationale for complaint:

Clinicians are trained to value evidence-based sources. References to anecdotes or non-clinical sources (such as news stories) may cause concern if not clearly contextualised. it is understandable if someone sees a Mirror headline and questions why that is being shown.

Likewise people may question the background of their tutor. It is understandable that people would want a tutor who works in their area and if they are working in a different area it might raise questions about credibility and knowledge. All understandable.

Reality:

I've put these two complaints together because they often both stem from a similar theme of an inability to perceive relevance, or acknowledge a slightly bigger picture. This can be the fault of either party (tutor or delegate) when it comes to contextualising a topic properly.

In all the subject areas I teach in, I do not work in, nor have I ever worked in, every possible context. Take immunisation for example. It is practiced in private clinics, pharmacies, school health, occupational health, the armed forces, GP surgeries, hospitals EVERYWHERE!! My impostor syndrome does rear it's ugly head from time to time as a 'private travel health nurse' teaching groups of nurses in other areas of practice... I can see why delegates may also have the same concerns.

And speaking of everywhere, the topic of immunisation itself appears all over the place; social media, news, the school playground, parliament, down the pub... Adult education benefits from real-world application. Tutors with relevant clinical experience, whatever or wherever that is, will often be compelled to use illustrative examples to show how guidance is applied in practice. Media stories may often be discussed when they influence public perception or provide teachable moments.

How to avoid criticism in this area?

Experienced tutors often use experience-based examples to support deeper understanding of guidance application. I would never discourage that. However, sessions should aim to balance this with clear references to authoritative sources (NaTHNaC, Green Book, WHO). Case studies and stories should be used with intent—not as evidence, but as context. Personally, I will never stop telling stories as part of my teaching. The way I see it, if someone wants an experienced tutor they might as well have the benefits of their experiences. Anecdotes are usually very much appreciated but occasionally people really take umbridge to them which is a great shame in my personal opinion.

A tutor might not know the ins and outs of what it is truly like to be an occupational health nurse or GPN or a HCA, but the principles of immunisation all apply whatever the role or context and this is important to keep in mind. The same guidance applies whatever situation one finds themselves in. If your impostor syndrome is raging, find and highlight the common ground as much as possible with delegates. For instance, I am certainly no stranger to managing a busy fully booked immunisation clinic and a team of nurses. I used to be a HCA. I probably meet 100 GPN's a week on courses. I have taken my kids to be immunised as a parent, had blood tests as a patient and had my head in my hands looking at facebook comments or news articles on immunisation. My experience might well be in a private clinic rather than an NHS one but I know how common issues generally go down. I've been through two CQC inspections, I've dealt with waiting lists, late-running clinics, customer complaints, arguments with HR and HQ over appointment timings, crying children, needlephobics, fainters... you name it, I've been there. And you probably have too. Don't let the imposter syndrome take over and don't be afraid to relate the guidance to the reality of everyday life in clinic and beyond!! Experience is what got us here in the first place.

Looks like:

• "Tutor deviated a lot" or "Tutor kept digressing to answer questions" (incidentally this can also be a POSITIVE bit of feedback)

• "Would have preferred my question answered earlier" or "Tutor didn't answer my question until the end"

• "Tutor too informal/formal/chatty/not chatty enough"

• "Too much practical elements" or "Too little practical elements"

(sometimes ALL of these appear in the feedback for the same session!!! - you can see the problem here)

Rationale for complaint:

Delegates (and tutors alike) will inevitably have expectations about how information should be presented and how sessions should be structured. Styles that deviate from this can be perceived negatively, especially under time pressure or when there are technical issues. Not everyone's personality will be congruent either, nor will opinions about highly topical areas such as immunisation. Some people like a relaxed digressy kind of session with lots of discussion, and others will prefer a more structured, military approach to delivery. And its extremely tough when it feels like your entire personality is being criticised. This is probably one of the hardest areas to satisfy everyone on all of the time.

I've had many a session where the same bit of feedback has been given but either framed as a positive or as a negative. For instance here's one that left my head spinning from a Travel health update a few years ago:

One delegate said in the feedback:

"I loved how the tutor really got to know us at the start. It made me feel welcome and able to ask questions later on. She accounted for all the different people in the group, and I felt comfortable to participate all the way through even though I was a bit nervous when I joined and I never normally join in with discussion in large groups. It was really interesting to hear where everyone else was working and how many areas travel can be practiced in and to have discussions about it. Opened my eyes. Can't wait for the next one!"

In the VERY SAME course on the same day another bit of feedback was:

"The tutor wasted time on introductions. I don't need to know where everyone else is working and I want the experts opinions, not everyone else's. Too much chat. Just tell me what I need to know. Won't be using her again".

Reality:

Some critiques such as the latter one, reflect personal learning style preferences, or discomfort with a more conversational or interactive approach. Additionally, individual teaching styles can be misinterpreted, especially when facilitators think aloud or respond dynamically to learners (I am very much like this. If you don't want a tutor who's willing to digress, definitely don't pick me for your training!). For tutors who are neurodivergent—including those with ADHD—these critiques can feel particularly personal. Neurodiversity can shape both the strengths and challenges of delivering live, responsive teaching. What may feel “disjointed” to some can be part of a dynamic, thoughtful teaching method that values flexibility, responsiveness, and connection.

It is also important to consider that some delegates may themselves be neurodivergent, or may require a more structured, clearly signposted approach in order to remain engaged. Balancing a variety of learning preferences while keeping sessions inclusive is a continuing professional skill, and one of the hardest skills there is!

Live sessions can vary depending on group interaction, questions, and emerging themes. While structure is important, flexibility is also a strength in adult learning. Live sessions should aim to be inclusive, adaptive, and responsive to the needs of the group. But sometimes that's not everyones cup of tea. Fortunately there are plenty of learning opportunities around that can remove that element of having to be with other people in a group or a situation that can be quite changeable. After all, I often question what is the point of a live session if you are not willing to digress a bit? This is why I also want to be able to provide filmed content to people too, for those who would rather cut out the discussion and access the information either as a standalone topic or a repeat of session content. This is why my next project involves a dabble with YouTube... watch this space!

Personality-based or delivery style critiques