Teachers, speech and language therapists, teaching assistants and nursery nurses are required to work together in a range of contexts in Foundation Stage (FS) school settings in the UK. In some cases these groups of practitioners are mutually involved in the implementation of a strategy or intervention and in the use of a particular tool or resource with children in these settings. The use of graphic symbols with children in the FS of education is increasingly common in mainstream and special school settings and is an activity that may involve any combination of practitioners in these professional groups. Graphic symbols are used with a wide range of children for a diverse range of purposes. A study was conducted in which the experiences of teachers, speech and language therapists, teaching assistants and nursery nurses using graphic symbols in FS school settings were explored. Practitioners in each of these groups working in the East Midlands region of the UK were interviewed about their experiences of using graphic symbols. The findings of this study encompassed a thematic framework and theoretical model depicting the patterns and themes emerging in the practitioners’ accounts. The proposed theoretical model suggests that practitioners are influenced by their unique professional reasoning processes, as well as the ways they perceive their own professional role and the roles of others. This article introduces the proposed theoretical model reflecting the factors influencing the collaborative implementation of graphic symbols in these FS school settings. Implications for collaborative practice in schools are considered.

Population health as an approach to planning is key to improving the health and well-being of whole populations and to reduce inequities within and between population groups. The Victorian Department of Health North and West Metropolitan Region, in collaboration with The University of Melbourne (School of Population Health), have delivered four annual population health short courses. The short courses were designed to equip participants with knowledge and skills to implement population health approaches upon their return to their workplaces. For three consecutive years, online surveys (n=41) and semi-structured interviews (n=35), underpinned by participatory and realist evaluation approaches, were conducted to obtain the perceptions and experiences of the population health short course participants. Evaluation findings indicate that participants' understanding of population health concepts increased; however, there were mixed outcomes in assisting participants' implementation of population health approaches upon their return to their workplaces. A core list of perceived requirements, enablers and barriers emerged at an individual, organisational and system level as influencing the capability of participants to implement population health approaches. Evaluation recommendations and actions taken to revise short course iterations are presented, providing evidence that the evaluation approaches were appropriate and increased the use of evaluation learnings. Implications of evaluation findings for professional development practice (i.e. shift from a 'Course' as a one-off event to a Population Health 'Program' of inter-dependent components) and evaluation (i.e. participatory realist evaluation approaches) are presented.

Changes in health service delivery and issues of quality of care and safety are driving interprofessional practice, and interprofessional learning (IPL) is now a requirement for medical school accreditation. There is international agreement that learning outcomes frameworks are required for the objectives of IPL to be fully realised, but there is debate about the most appropriate terminology. Interprofessional skills can be gained in several ways - from formal educational frameworks, at pre- and post-registration levels to work-based training. Research activity suggests that many consider that IPL delivers much-needed skills to health professionals, but some systematic reviews show that evidence of a link to patient outcomes is lacking. Australian efforts to develop an evidence base to support IPL have progressed, with new research drawing on recommendations of experts in the area. The focus has now shifted to curriculum development. The extent to which IPL is rolled out in Australian universities will depend on engagement and endorsement from curriculum managers and the broader faculty.

Evidence now exists at a point in time about what makes the WSR processes work. Implications for HWNZ are presented using a capacity-building framework to inform future decision making regarding WSRs. WHAT IS KNOWN ABOUT THE TOPIC? More appropriate workforce planning is required to meet the challenges facing the health workforce, from both the demand and the workforce side. To ensure New Zealand's healthcare workforce was fit for purpose, HWNZ initiated an iterative WSR process in topic specific areas. The WSRs process was designed to develop a vision of the relevant health service and workforce for 2020, and models of care that were patient-centred and team-based. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD? The paper provides evidence that the WSR process was a successful means for bringing together professionals from across the health disciplines and building sector capacity to develop new ways of thinking about service and workforce planning. The paper presents key enablers of, and barriers to, the WSR iterative process. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS? The evaluation revealed that a multitude of factors can influence the capacity of the WSR process at the individual (workforce skills and abilities), organisational (leadership and interactions) and systems (infrastructure) levels. Implications for HWNZ on ways to build the capacity of the WSRs according to three capacity-building dimensions are presented to inform future decision making.

Summary Health systems with strong primary care orientations are known to be associated with improved equity, better access for patients to appropriate services at lower costs, and improved population health. Team‐based models of primary care have emerged in response to health system challenges due to complex patient profiles, patient expectations and health system demands. Successful team‐based models of primary care require a combination of interprofessional education and learning; organisational and management policies and systems; and practice support systems. To ensure evidence is put into practice, we propose a framework comprising five domains (theory, implementation, infrastructure, sustainability and evaluation) to assist policymakers, educators, researchers, managers and health professionals in supporting team‐based models of primary care within the Australian health care system.