Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of intestinal spirochacies

Pulsed field gel electrophoresis of 82 intestinal spirochaete isolates showed specific differentiation of Serpulina pilosicoli and Serpulina hyodysenteriae although considerable heterogeneity was observed, especially amongst S. pilosicoli isolates. In several cases genotypically similar isolates originated from different animals suggesting that cross-species transmission may have occurred. The Caco-2 and Caco-21HT29 cell models have been proposed as potentially realistic models of intestinal infection. Quantitation of adhesion to the cells showed isolate 3 82/91 (from a bacteraemia) to adhere at significantly greater numbers than any other isolate tested. This isolate produced a PFGE profile which differed from other S. pilosicoli isolates and so would be of interest for further study. Comparison of bacteraemic and other S. pilosicoli isolates suggested that bacteraemic isolates were not more specifically adapted for adhesion to, or invasion of the epithelial cell layer than other S. pilosicoli isolates. Genotypically similar isolates from differing animal origins adhered to the Caco-2 model at similar levels. Generation of a random genomic library of S. pilosicoli and screening with species specific monoclonal antibody has enabled the identification of a gene sequence encoding a protein which showed significant homology with an ancestral form of the enzyme pyruvate oxidoreductase. Immunoscreening with polyclonal serum identified the sequences of two gene clusters and a probable arylsulphatase. One gene cluster represented a ribosomal gene cluster which has a similar molecular arrangement to Borrelia burgdorjeri, Treponema pallidum and Thermatoga maritima. The other gene cluster contained an ABC transporter protein, sorbitol dehydrogenase and phosphomannose isomerase. An ELISA type assay was used to demonstrate that isolates of S. pilosicoli could adhere to components of the extracellular matrix such as collagen (type 1), fibronectin, laminin, and porcine gastric mucin

Barriers to women's access to alongside midwifery units in England

Background: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are managed by midwives and proximate to obstetric units (OUs), offering a home-like birth environment for women with straightforward pregnancies. They support physiological birth, with fast access to medical care if needed. AMUs have good perinatal outcomes and lower rates of interventions than OUs. In England, uptake remains lower than potential use, despite recent changes in policy to support their use. This article reports on experiences of access from a broader study that investigated AMU organisation and care. Methods: Organisational case studies in four National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected for variation geographically and in features of their midwifery units. Fieldwork (December 2011 to October 2012) included observations (>100 h); semi-structured interviews with staff, managers and stakeholders (n = 89) and with postnatal women and partners (n = 47), on which this paper reports. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo10 software. Results: Women, partners and families felt welcome and valued in the AMU. They were drawn to the AMUs’ environment, philosophy and approach to technology, including pain management. Access for some was hindered by inconsistent information about the existence, environment and safety of AMUs, and barriers to admission in early labour. Conclusions:Key barriers to AMUs arise through inequitable information and challenges with admission in early labour. Most women still give birth in obstetric units and despite increases in the numbers of women birthing on AMUs since 2010, addressing these barriers will be essential to future scale-up

Spirituality at work: danger, luxury or necessity?

The idea of spirituality at work has increasingly become a focus of attention. Calls for introducing this dimension of our lives into the workplace have major implications for business leaders. How might business leaders face up to this challenge, and what are the implications if they ignore it

Concise Review: Mind the Gap: Challenges in Characterizing and Quantifying Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapies for Clinical Translation

There are many challenges associated with characterizing and quantifying cells for use in cell- and tissue-based therapies. From a regulatory perspective, these advanced treatments must not only be safe and effective but also be made by high-quality manufacturing processes that allow for on-time delivery of viable products. Although sterility assays can be adapted from conventional bioprocessing, cell- and tissue-based therapies require more stringent safety assessments, especially in relation to use of animal products, immune reaction, and potential instability due to extended culture times. Furthermore, cell manufacturers who plan to use human embryonic stem cells in their therapies need to be particularly stringent in their final purification steps, due to the unrestricted growth potential of these cells. This review summarizes the current issues in characterization and quantification for cell- and tissue-based therapies, dividing these challenges into the regulatory themes of safety, potency, and manufacturing quality. It outlines current assays in use, as well as highlights the limits of many of these product release tests. Mode of action is discussed, with particular reference to in vitro surrogate assays that can be used to provide information to correlate with proposed in vivo patient efficacy. Importantly, this review highlights the requirement for basic research to improve current knowledge on the in vivo fate of these treatments; as well as an improved stakeholder negotiation process to identify the measurement requirements that will ensure the manufacture of the best possible cell- and tissue-based therapies within the shortest timeframe for the most patient benefit

What makes alongside midwifery-led units work? Lessons from a national research project

The findings of the Birthplace in England Research Programme showed that midwife-led units are providing the safest and most cost-effective care for low risk women in England. Since the publication of the updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) intrapartum guidelines, there is likely to be even more interest in the development of midwife-led units to promote birth outside obstetric units (OUs) for low-risk women. Professional bodies, policy makers and trusts have focused their energies on alongside midwife-led units (AMUs), which are seen to provide the 'best of both worlds' between home and an OU. Between 2012 and 2013, we carried out a study of the organisation of four AMUs in England and the experiences of midwives and women who worked and birthed there. Learning from their experiences, this article presents five key factors which help make AMUs work

An analysis of media reporting on the closure of freestanding midwifery units in England

PROBLEM: Despite clinical guidelines and policy promoting choice of place of birth, 14 Freestanding Midwifery Units were closed between 2008 and 2015, closures justified by low use and financial constraints. BACKGROUND: The Birthplace in England Programme found that freestanding midwifery units provided the most cost-effective birthplace for women at low risk of complications. Women planning birth in a freestanding unit were less likely to experience interventions than those planning obstetric unit birth, with no difference in outcomes for babies. METHODS: This paper uses an interpretative technique developed for policy analysis to explore the representation of these closures in 191 news articles, to explore the public climate in which they occurred. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION: The articles focussed on underuse by women and financial constraints on services. Despite the inclusion of service user voices, the power of framing was held by service managers and commissioners. The analysis exposed how neoliberalist and austerity policies has privileged representation of individual consumer choice and market-driven provision as drivers of changes in health services. This normative framing makes the reasons given for closure as hard to refute and cultural norms persist that birth is safest in an obstetric setting, despite evidence to the contrary. CONCLUSION: The rise of neoliberalism and austerity in contemporary Britain has influenced the reform of maternity services, in particular the closure of midwifery units. Justifications given for closure silence other narratives, predominantly from service users, that attempt to present women's choice in terms of rights and a social model of care

Disrespectful intrapartum care during facility-based delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis of women's perceptions and experiences

The psycho-social elements of labour and delivery are central to any woman's birth experience, but international efforts to reduce maternal mortality in low-income contexts have neglected these aspects and focused on technological birth. In many contexts, maternity care is seen as dehumanised and disrespectful, which can have a negative impact on utilisation of services. We undertook a systematic review and meta-synthesis of the growing literature on women's experiences of facility-based delivery in sub-Saharan Africa to examine the drivers of disrespectful intrapartum care. Using PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched from 1990 to 06 May 2015, and 25 original studies were included for thematic synthesis. Analytical themes, that were theoretically informed and cognisant of the cultural and social context in which the dynamics of disrespectful care occur, enabled a fresh interpretation of the factors driving midwives' behaviour. A conceptual framework was developed to show how macro-, meso- and micro-level drivers of disrespectful care interact. The synthesis revealed a prevailing model of maternity care that is institution-centred, rather than woman-centred. Women's experiences illuminate midwives' efforts to maintain power and control by situating birth as a medical event and to secure status by focusing on the technical elements of care, including controlling bodies and knowledge. Midwives and women are caught between medical and social models of birth. Global policies encouraging facility-based delivery are forcing women to swap the psycho-emotional care they would receive from traditional midwives for the technical care that professional midwives are currently offering. Any action to change the current performance and dynamic of birth relies on the participation of midwives, but their voices are largely missing from the discourse. Future research should explore their perceptions of the value and practice of interpersonal aspects of maternity care and the impact of disrespectful care on their sense of professionalism and personal ethics