Table 2.

Summary of topic guides used for the individual and group interviews.

Introduction
R.P. conducted the interviews. At that time, she held a PhD in Social Sciences and was employed as a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Nottingham. At the start of the interviews, R.P. told the participants about her background in physiotherapy, her experience in conducting video research in healthcare settings and her interest in conducting video research in the future at the same hospice. The purpose of the research, as explained to participants, was to assess their views about the possibility of conducting a subsequent video-based study at the same hospice where the interviews were taking place. In that subsequent study we recorded conversations between hospice doctors, patients and carers (when present). R.P. further told them the purpose of the interviews was to gather views about whether or not collecting video data at the hospice would be acceptable, and why or why not; she also described measures, gleaned from the literature, that could be adopted to make video recording safer and asked the interviewees’ views on those and any other safeguards they deemed important.
Interview guide
• Patients and companions were asked to imagine that they had been asked to consider allowing a video recording to be made of their next conversation with their hospice doctor, for research on how doctors communicate.  • Senior doctors, who were also potential participants in the subsequent study, were similarly asked to imagine they had been asked to consider allowing video recordings to be made of their next conversations with some of their patients.  • Senior nurses and educators were asked about the overall acceptability of the proposal to video-record doctor patient consultations at the hospice (because the subsequent study did not aim to record nurses and educators).
Subsequent topics
• As worded for patients and companions. The same topics, but with amended wording, were covered with other interviewees.
If they said video recording would be unacceptable for them, they were asked:  • To elaborate on their reasons.  • About whether they thought it would ever be acceptable, even though they would not participate personally.
If they said recording would be acceptable, they were asked about:  • What they (and their companions) would want to know about the study.  • How long they would need in order to decide whether to participate.  • The acceptability of prospective verbal assent with written consent sought after recording.  • Whether or not the camera operator should be present within the room.  • Their views on having a remote control available in the room allowing recording to be stopped at any time.  • How long after recording consent should be discussed.  • Whether participants should be given an opportunity to see the recording or receive a copy.  • Whether or not it would be acceptable for people beyond the small research team to view recordings – specifically: other experts viewing them with the aim of strengthening the analysis; other researchers attending presentations of findings; and closed groups of health and social care staff or trainees attending communication skills training. The fact that some participants in the recordings would have died by the time clips were used in such training was explicitly addressed unless the interviewer judged raising this would be distressing for the interviewee.  • Measures that could be adopted to make video recording safer.
Towards the end of interviews, participants were invited to add other thoughts and comments. Throughout, the interviewer attempted to facilitate the raising of relevant matters not specifically covered by the guide.