Introduction: Many patients with advanced or end-stage diseases spend months or years in need of optimal physical, spiritual, psychological, and social care. Despite efforts to provide community care, those with severe illness often present to emergency departments (EDs). This abstract presents preliminary results on the qualitative component of an ED-based mixed methods pilot study. The objective of this qualitative component is to develop and test an interview guide to collect qualitative data on physicians perceptions about unmet palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs in EDs. Methods: A scan of the literature on PC and EOLC in EDs was conducted to develop propositions about what might be expected through the clinician interviews, as well as an interview guide. The interview guide will be piloted with up to four ED physicians. During the interview each physician will describe a case where a PC patient had unmet care needs and the impacts they believe these unmet needs had on patients and families. Interview transcripts will be coded descriptively and then conceptually themed by the researcher who conducted the interview. Interpretations drawn from the interview data, with supporting quotations and comparison to initial propositions, will be presented to members of the research team with experience providing ED care, for further interpretation. Advice of a second trained qualitative researcher will be sought on the richness and relevance of data obtained and how the interview guide could be improved to elicit richer and/or more relevant data. A revised interview guide will be produced alongside rationales for why the proposed revisions will elicit richer data. Results: After reviewing 27 articles on PC and EOLC, propositions and an initial interview guide were developed based on themes from the literature and the study groups experiences. One of the primary results of this pilot work will be an enhanced understanding of PC and EOLC in our local ED context, as reflected in an interview guide revised to elicit richer data than achieved through the initial interview guide. Conclusion: The comparison between our propositions and the study findings will help identify how biases may have influenced interview questions and/or the interpretation of the data. This pilot work to develop an interview guide enhances the rigour of this qualitative work on unmet PC and EOLC needs in EDs.