Experiences of patients with advanced COPD affiliated to a cross‐sectorial outgoing lung team: A qualitative study.

Aim: To explore experiences of patients affiliated to a cross‐sectorial outgoing lung team. Background: The outgoing lung team consisted of respiratory nurses from the hospital and community nurses. The lung team offered 24/7 help to patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through visits and/or treatment in the patients' home. Affiliation to the lung team reduced both hospitalizations and length of hospital stay due to acute exacerbation of COPD. However, based on questionnaires on health‐related quality of life, no significant differences were found between patients affiliated to the lung team and patients receiving usual care. Design: A qualitative interview study. Methods: In total, 16 patients, aged 61–88 years were interviewed between February 2019 and July 2021. They had been affiliated to the outgoing lung team for 1–3 years. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted in the patients' home and audio‐recorded after informed consent was obtained. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed, inspired by systematic text condensation by Malterud. Findings: Four themes emerged from the analysis: (1) feeling safe, (2) improvements in living with COPD, (3) avoiding hospitalization and (4) satisfied with staying at home. Conclusion: Affiliation to the cross‐sectorial outgoing lung team gave the patients peace of mind and improved their ability to live with advanced COPD. The patients preferred contacting the lung team because they could stay at home and receive treatment, and thus avoid hospitalization. Impact: The findings from this study support that municipalities should consider implementing an outgoing lung team, as it has the potential to bring several benefits, including improving patient self‐management. Reporting Method: The manuscript adhered to Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guideline. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients were interviewed. Additionally, no patient or public contributed to the design or conduction of the study, analysis, or interpretation of the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]