Screening of lactic acid bacteria from the gut of Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus for use as probiotics in aquaculture production

Lactic and bacteria (LAB) namely Lactobacillus plantarum l and L. pentosus were isolated from the gut of Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus using Bergey's manual of determinative bacteriology (API- 50 CHL, BioMerieux). They are beneficial and safe organisms that improves disturbances of the indigenous microflora and host's immune system. Gut removed from fish samples were dissected and divided into 3 regions: fore gill, mid gut and hind gut. Lactobacillus plantarum l and L. pentosus were isolated from these regions using MRS (de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe) agar and broth after subsequent culture and sub culture to obtain discrete colonies. They were characterized as gram-positive, non-motile, catalase negative and non-sporulating bacteria

In vitro activity of iclaprim and comparator agents against Listeria monocytogenes clinical isolates from 2012 to 2018

Objectives: This study examined the in vitro activity of iclaprim and comparators against 40 Listeria monocytogenes clinical isolates mostly (95%) from patients with bloodstream infection (BSI) from the USA, Australia/New Zealand, Latin America and Europe collected between 2012–2018. Methods: Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) interpretations were based on CLSI criteria. Results: The iclaprim MIC90 value for all L. monocytogenes was 0.015 μg/mL. The MIC50/90 values for iclaprim were 4-fold lower than trimethoprim, the only FDA-approved dihydrofolate reductase inhibitor, against all L. monocytogenes. Conclusion: Iclaprim demonstrated lower MIC values than trimethoprim against a collection (2012–2018) of L. monocytogenes clinical isolates mostly from patients with BSI from the USA, Australia/New Zealand, Latin America and Europe

A Manifesto for Relationship-Based Practice: Breaking the Boundaries Collective

We are a group of service users, professionals and services who began a project called Breaking the Boundaries Collective. This project advocates and campaigns for relationship-based practice (RBP). We offer resources and guidance for ways to achieve it. We encourage and foster discussions and debates on aspects of RBP that challenge hegemonic notions of professional boundaries

Breaking the Boundaries Collective – A Manifesto for Relationship-based Practice

This paper argues that professionals who make boundary-related decisions should be guided by relationship-based practice. In our roles as service users and professionals, drawing from our lived experiences of professional relationships, we argue we need to move away from distance-based practice. This includes understanding the boundary stories and narratives that exist for all of us – including the people we support, other professionals, as well as the organisations and systems within which we work. When we are dealing with professional boundary issues, we should centre relationship-building skills that are central to many other aspects of our work. Skills that foster relationships at all levels – between professionals, service users, and services – need to be revalued. Our final recommendation is to create, develop, and foster safer spaces within and outside of organisations, as well as inter-professionally, for the discussion and exploration of boundary-related issues and practice. We are interested in hearing from those with experiences of being marginalised by boundaries so that they can inform a reshaping of our collective ideas around boundary related practices. To foster relationship-based practices in organisations, we have outlined several recommendations here; however, we recognize that these do not go far enough, and that collective action is needed to inform systemic change

A Manifesto for Relationship-Based Practice: Breaking the Boundaries Collective

Boundaries are an integral aspect of an ethical, safe, and healthy professional practice. However, there are issues imbedded within the concept of boundaries that can lead to ineffective, unsafe, and unhealthy practises. We are a group of service users, professionals, and services, mainly based in the UK, who have come together around a central theme of fostering relationship-based practice (RBP) as a central principle in all helping professions. The commonality between members of this group is shared experiences of the power of authentic, healthy, and safe relationships and witnessing the potential for change when professionals have challenged conventional ideas or decisions around professional boundaries. This group was formed after one of the authors (Lisa Cherry) identified a common thread whilst analysing the data for her PhD thesis – she noticed that occasions when professionals ‘broke’ or challenged boundaries were often seen as pivotal moments of change. Lisa was interested in how other people (professionals and service users) had experienced the power of this aspect of practice. Lisa sent a Tweet (Cherry, 2022) to her networks asking if this theme resonated with others. It garnered a huge response from many people – including clients, service users, academics, researchers, teachers, university lecturers, social workers, counsellors, and psychotherapists (as well as many others) – and from this the Breaking the Boundaries Collective was born (BTBC, 2022). This article is founded on all those perspectives and voices; the quotes used are taken from members of the collective and highlight pertinent reflections around the practice we are advocating for. We have written this paper to argue for an approach to professional boundaries that is relational, and to explore creative ways we, as professionals, can move away from defensive, distance-based practice (e.g., practice that lacks empathy and compassion, thereby, creating barriers to effective and collaborative work). There is evidence this dialogue is happening within professions, for example, counselling and psychotherapy (e.g., Blundell, Oakley and Kinmond, 2022; Speight, 2011), social work (e.g., Blundell, in press; O’Leary et al., 2013), teaching (e.g., Hewitson, 2021; Palmer, 2011) and other related professions (e.g., Cherry, 2021; Smythe et al., 2017). This paper aims to move this dialogue into an interdisciplinary space by engaging multiple professions and professionals (Cherry, 2021). Therefore, we invite the reader to evaluate their relationship with professional boundaries by assessing their current boundary practice and how it is situated within the context of the organisations and systems within which they work, then we ask the reader to (re)value their skills in fostering healthy and safe relationships when working with boundary issues