This article discusses the case of a 47-year-old woman who underwent primary therapy with curative intent for breast cancer. The case illustrates a number of failure events in transferring information and responsibility from oncology to primary care teams. The article emphasizes the importance of shared leadership, as multiple team members, dispersed in time and space, pursue their own objectives while achieving the common goal of coordinating care for survivors of cancer transitioning across settings. Shared leadership is defined as a team property comprising shared responsibility and mutual influence between the patient and the patient’s family, primary care providers, and oncology teams, whereby they lead each other toward quality and safety of care. Teams, including the patient-family, should achieve leadership when their contribution is relevant in managing task interdependence during transition. Shared leadership fosters coordinated actions to enable functioning as an integrated team-of-teams. This article illustrates how shared leadership can make a difference to coordinate interfaces and pathways, from therapy with curative intent to the follow-up and management of survivors of breast cancer. The detailed case is elaborated as a clinical vignette. It can be used by care providers and researchers to consider the need for new models of care for survivors of cancer by addressing the following questions. Who accepts shared leadership, how, with whom, and under what conditions? What is the evidence that supports the answers to these questions? The detailed case is also valuable for medical and allied health professional education.

Studies on interprofessional practice usually report professionals' viewpoints and document organizational, procedural and relational factors influencing that practice. Considering the importance of interprofessional patient-centred (IPPC) practice, it seems necessary to describe it in detail in an actual context of care, from the perspective of patients, their families and health-care professionals. The goal of this study was to describe IPPC practice throughout the continuum of cancer care. A qualitative multiple case study was completed with two interprofessional teams from a Canadian teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted with patients, their families and professionals, and observation was carried out. Three themes were illustrated by current team practice: welcoming the person as a unique individual, but still requiring the patient to comply; the paradoxical coexistence of patient-centred discourse and professional-centred practice; and triggering team collaboration with the culmination of the patient's situation. Several influential factors were described, including the way the team works; the physical environment; professionals' and patients'/family members' stance on the collaboration; professionals' stance on patients and their families; and patients' stance on professionals. Finally, themes describing the desired IPPC practice reflect the wish of most participants to be more involved. They were: providing support in line with the patient's experience and involvement; respecting patients by not imposing professionals' values and goals; and consistency and regularity in the collaboration of all members.

Introduction: The number of survivors of breast cancer (bca) in Canada has steadily increased thanks to major advances in cancer care. But the resulting clientele face new challenges related to survivorship. The lack of continuity of care and the side effects of treatment affect the resumption of active life by survivors of bca, including return to work (rtw). The goal of the present article was to outline gaps and delay in survivorship care in the rtw pathway of survivors of bca. Methods: This qualitative interpretative descriptive study recruited 9 survivors of bca in the province of Quebec. Interviews were conducted at the end of cancer treatments (n = 9), 1 month before rtw (n = 9), and after rtw (n = 5). In an iterative process, a content analysis was performed. Results: The interviews highlighted gaps in survivorship care and the paucity of dedicated resources for cancer survivors. Participants received neither a survivorship care plan nor information about cancer survivorship (for example, transition to a new normal, side effects, rtw). Conclusions: Support for survivors of bca resuming their active lives has to be optimized. We suggest that health professionals have to intervene at 1, 3, and 6 months after cancer treatment. At those points, survivors of bca need support for side-effects management, the rtw decision, resource navigation, and reintegration of daily activities. Also, delay in clinical pathways seems to be longer, and much attention is needed to accompany the transition to a “normal life” after cancer.

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.