Magnet ® Consulting: How Composed Documents Fits the Magnet Process

20 August 2026

For organizations pursuing Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® designation, written documents is not a side task or a product packaging workout. It is the formal narrative of how nursing excellence shows up in practice, how management and professional structures support it, and how outcomes show it. In practical terms, the composed submission is where a health center or healthcare company translates daily work into the proof structure required by ANCC, the American Nurses Credentialing Center.

That difference matters. Many organizations do outstanding work long before they believe seriously about Magnet. Nurses lead improvements, councils form practice, leaders purchase professional development, and client care teams fine-tune what works. None of that automatically ends up being Magnet proof. The process requires a disciplined conversion of lived practice into written paperwork connected to ANCC's standards and proof requirements. This is where Magnet ® Consulting often ends up being most valuable, not since outside assistance can develop quality, but due to the fact that strong consulting can help an organization capture it clearly, properly, and in a kind that lines up with the application manual.

Written documents sits at the center of the Magnet process since Magnet classification is awarded by ANCC based on whether an organization fulfills the program's requirements for nursing quality. ANCC describes Magnet as both acknowledgment and a roadmap to nursing excellence. That double identity describes why the composing phase feels so consequential. The document is not just a report. It is the organization's case that its nursing environment, structures, professional practice, innovation efforts, and results fulfill an acknowledged national standard.
Why the writing carries so much weight
People often assume the hard part of Magnet is the work on the units and in the boardroom, while the file is simply the final assembly. In my experience, that is in reverse. The work itself is clearly the structure, but the composing phase is where gaps become visible. Documents has a way of revealing whether a claim is fully grown, whether a procedure is embedded, and whether an outcome is genuinely attributable to the company's nursing structures and practices.

An executive team may feel confident that transformational management is strong. Nurse leaders may know they have actually developed a culture of responsibility and advocacy. Staff might speak passionately about shared decision-making and professional autonomy. Yet when the company needs to express that reality through ANCC's written proof requirements, a number of questions surface quickly. Can the team reveal the development of the work? Can it describe the structure in clear functional terms? Can it connect practices to results in a manner that is concrete rather than aspirational? Can it do so consistently across settings?

That is why written paperwork tends to sharpen organizational thinking. It forces precision. Unclear language does not hold up well in a Magnet story. General appreciation for nursing culture is not the like evidence. Broad declarations about development need grounding in actual examples and results. The composing process needs the company to move from "our company believe we are strong here" to "here is how this requirement is expressed and how we know it."
The function paperwork plays in the Magnet framework
The current Magnet structure is organized around 5 parts of the empirical design. Those parts are Transformational https://chcm.com/solutions/magnet-consulting/ https://chcm.com/solutions/magnet-consulting/ Management, Structural Empowerment, Exemplary Specialist Practice, New Knowledge, Developments, & & Improvements, and Empirical Outcomes. ANCC's model evolved from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism after statistical analysis and was regrouped into this five-component conceptual model.

Written documents exists to show how a company fulfills expectations within that structure. That sounds uncomplicated, however in practice it means the document needs to do 2 jobs at once. Initially, it needs to be arranged and responsive to ANCC's proof requirements. Second, it needs to still check out as a meaningful portrait of a real organization, not as disconnected pieces submitted under headings.

This is among the subtler parts of Magnet composing. A strictly technical document may answer specific requirements however stop working to communicate how the system really works. A perfectly composed document may sound engaging however leave the appraisal procedure with unanswered proof questions. The strongest submissions handle both. They remain connected to the necessary evidence while providing a clear, reliable account of nursing quality in context.

For example, a section connected to Structural Empowerment ought to not wander into broad claims about organizational pride. It should explain how structures support nursing involvement, development, and influence. An area on Empirical Results can not depend on narrative momentum alone. It needs to show outcomes, and it has to present them in a way that is defensible. The discipline of Magnet composing is knowing when to broaden the lens and when to narrow it.
Where Magnet ® Consulting fits, and where it must not
There is a healthy way to think about Magnet ® Consulting and an unhelpful one. The healthy variation is this: seeking advice from helps an organization interpret requirements, build a sensible paperwork strategy, impose order on a large composing effort, and maintain rigor from draft to final submission. The unhelpful version treats seeking advice from as a shortcut or an alternative to internal ownership.

No specialist can produce a Magnet culture on paper. If the nursing structures are thin, if the outcomes are not there, or if leaders and personnel do not share a common understanding of practice, the file will ultimately reveal those weak points. Great consultants know this and state it plainly. Their role is to help the organization inform the fact more clearly, not to embellish weak evidence.

The best consulting support usually brings three sort of discipline. One is alignment, making sure groups understand the difference between a strong regional story and a Magnet-ready story. Another is consistency, so language, evidence standards, and organizational voice do not change from chapter to chapter. The 3rd is judgment, particularly when choosing which examples are mature adequate to include and which belong in future cycles rather than the current one.

That judgment matters more than numerous teams anticipate. It is tempting to consist of every effective task and every accomplishment since the company has actually striven. But a larger file is not always a more powerful one. In a Magnet submission, importance and clarity matter. A concise, well-supported example generally does more work than a stretching one that tries to prove ten things at once.
The document is built from evidence requirements, not from enthusiasm
ANCC's application products and crosswalk resources make clear that Magnet candidates submit written documentation utilizing Sources of Proof, or proof requirements, tied to the application handbook. That point needs to anchor the whole preparation process.

Organizations frequently start with enthusiasm, and that is appropriate. Magnet work can energize nursing groups, specifically when leaders frame it as part of the wider Journey to Magnet Quality ®. However interest alone can develop a common issue. Teams begin gathering stories, discussions, committee notes, and quality wins without very first choosing how each item maps to the evidence requirement it is supposed to support. Later, the composing group faces piles of product however still has a hard time to address the actual prompt.

A better method is to let the evidence requirements drive collection and composing from the start. That does not make the process dry. It makes it effective. It also safeguards personnel time. Nursing groups are busy, and paperwork requests can end up being intrusive if they are not disciplined. A clear evidence map helps everybody understand what is required, why it is required, and how it will be used.

This is frequently where a consulting partner earns its keep. Not by increasing activity, but by decreasing waste. The best question is not "What do we have?" It is "What is needed, what proves it, and what is the cleanest way to discuss it?"
What strong written documents typically has in common
Even though every organization's Magnet story is different, strong written documentation tends to share a couple of traits.
It is faithful to the ANCC evidence requirement it is addressing. It uses concrete examples instead of abstract praise. It links structures and practices to outcomes when results are relevant. It maintains one clear voice even when many factors are involved. It avoids overemphasizing what the organization can reasonably support.
Those points might sound obvious, but they are where lots of drafts rise or fall. A typical weak pattern is overstatement. The writing ends up being marketing, and the prose starts making claims that the accompanying proof can not completely bring. Another weak pattern is fragmentation. Various areas are drafted by different departments, each with its own vocabulary and presumptions, and the last document reads like 5 companies stitched together.

There is likewise a quieter issue that appears in otherwise strong drafts: under-explaining the normal. Teams close to the work typically skip information due to the fact that they feel regular. Yet routine is precisely what Magnet writing needs to make noticeable. If a governance structure operates well, discuss how. If leaders interact efficiently, discuss through what mechanism and with what result. If a nursing practice change caused more powerful results, describe what altered in practice, not just that improvement occurred.
The tension between regional voice and official standards
One reason Magnet writing can feel challenging is that healthcare facilities are trying to preserve their own identity while composing to a formal standard. Every organization has its own language. Some are highly scholastic. Some are functional and direct. Some have a deeply collaborative culture that comes through in whatever they compose. The obstacle is to preserve that authentic voice without drifting away from the discipline the submission requires.

I have actually seen companies make opposite errors. One group removed its documenting so aggressively to sound "main" that the document ended up being generic. Another leaned so heavily into local storytelling that reviewers would have had to work too tough to find the proof logic. Neither is ideal.

A much better balance comes from composing with restraint. Let the organization sound like itself, but make every paragraph do a clear task. The story needs to feel lived-in, not manufactured. If an expert practice model or management technique genuinely forms decision-making, that should come through in the examples selected and the sequence of the story, not through mottos repeated every couple of pages.

This is also why a disciplined editorial process matters. A lot of Magnet files are constructed by numerous hands. System leaders, nursing executives, educators, quality experts, and specialty experts might all contribute. Without careful modifying, the outcome can alternate between policy language, marketing language, and academic language. Readers feel the joints right away. The strongest final documents smooth those seams while keeping the compound intact.
Documentation often exposes functional reality
One of the most important elements of the writing process is that it exposes the distinction between a program that exists and a program that works. That may sound extreme, however it is usually productive. A council can exist on an organizational chart without materially forming practice. A management structure can be in place without demonstrating transformational impact. An expert advancement offering can be available without being integrated into the culture.

Written Magnet documents tends to expose that gap since it asks the organization to reveal not only the existence of structures, but likewise the result of them. That is specifically important provided the five elements of the Magnet design. The model is not merely a list of programs. It is a method of understanding how management, empowerment, expert practice, innovation, and outcomes work together.

This is one reason organizations take advantage of beginning documentation preparation early. Not because composing itself always takes an exceptionally long period of time, but because honest writing may reveal work that still needs to develop. A team might find that an example feels appealing but not yet steady sufficient to represent the organization. Or it might discover that a result story is compelling but improperly recorded in its present type. Much better to discover that before the submission duration ends up being urgent.
Redesignation alters the composing stance
There is an essential difference between initial designation and redesignation. ANCC states that companies that have currently made Magnet Acknowledgment need to pursue redesignation to continue being recognized. That status alters the writing position in subtle however meaningful ways.

An organization looking for designation is proving it has satisfied Magnet requirements. An organization looking for redesignation is likewise showing connection, maturity, and continual excellence gradually. The document still needs to deal with required proof, however readers are naturally trying to find signs that Magnet principles are not episodic or campaign-based. They need to be embedded in the nursing culture.

That suggests redesignation writing typically demands a more refined sense of what is worth highlighting. Repeating familiar structures without showing ongoing strength can flatten the narrative. On the other hand, going after novelty for its own sake can pull attention away from the core requirements. The ideal balance is generally found in demonstrating that the organization has actually sustained and advanced its nursing quality, rather than simply preserved old achievements.

This is another location where thoughtful Magnet ® Consulting can assist. Redesignation groups in some cases undervalue how various the composing task feels the second time around. The problem is not simply producing another file. It is revealing development with credibility.
The practical work of event and shaping evidence
The mechanics of documents matter more than numerous executives anticipate. The composing itself is just one layer. Underneath it sit proof collection, variation control, internal evaluation, and decisions about what belongs in the last narrative. ANCC also provides digital tools and guides to support the appraisal procedure and interim tracking during classification, which shows how official and structured the broader procedure is.

In real settings, paperwork projects can drift unless someone owns the architecture. Drafts increase. Supporting files are stored in too many places. Groups dispute language that ought to have been settled by a style guide. Busy leaders submit examples late, and writers try to compensate by stretching thin product. None of this is uncommon. It is simply what takes place when a complex organizational story is assembled without adequate governance.

The organizations that manage this finest tend to establish a clear internal process early. Not an elaborate bureaucracy, just enough structure that individuals understand what great evidence looks like, who evaluates it, and how it moves toward last narrative form.

A useful review procedure generally checks each draft versus a brief set of concerns:
Does this section answer the stated evidence requirement directly? Is the example specific enough to be credible? Are the claims proportionate to what can be supported? Is the writing constant with the remainder of the document? Would a notified reader outside the organization understand what occurred and why it matters?
Those concerns can conserve massive time. They also minimize the psychological friction that typically develops around Magnet writing. Personnel and leaders end up being attached to examples they have endured, not surprisingly so. But the submission is not a scrapbook of significant work. It is a formal document connected to ANCC requirements. A fair evaluation framework keeps choices concentrated on fit and strength instead of sentiment.
Fees, timing, and why paperwork planning can not wait
ANCC posts different Magnet application and appraisal fee schedules, consisting of an online application cost and appraisal review charges due at written document submission. Even without entering figures, that reality alone needs to form planning. Composed documentation is not simply a narrative turning point. It is connected to a formal progression in the Magnet process, with timing and expense implications.

That makes hold-up expensive in more methods than one. When paperwork preparation begins too late, organizations often spend for the rush through personnel fatigue, revamp, and missed chances to reinforce evidence. The issue is seldom that groups hesitate. It is that clinical operations constantly have rightful top priority, and composing expands to fill whatever time stays unless leaders protect it.

Experienced organizations deal with the writing duration as a severe functional task. They designate accountable leaders, specify evaluation phases, and set expectations for responsiveness. If they work with experts, they do so with clearness about functions. Internal leaders own the content. Consultants support interpretation, drafting discipline, and editorial coherence. That department tends to produce the healthiest outcome since the document remains clearly the organization's own.
What composed paperwork can not do
It is useful to say clearly what documents can not achieve. It can not compensate for weak nursing structures. It can not transform a detached culture into a strong one by force of prose. It can not create empirical results that are not there. It can not erase disparity across service lines. And it can not carry a Magnet effort that does not have executive and nursing management commitment.

That might sound blunt, but it is in fact reassuring. The writing does not ask a company to become something artificial. It asks the company to show, with discipline and honesty, what it has developed. When that work is real, documents becomes an act of information instead of performance.

This viewpoint also assists companies utilize Magnet ® Consulting carefully. The best consulting relationship is not built on reliance. It is constructed on openness. Experts should have the ability to say where the story is strong, where it is thin, and where the company needs to decide whether to reinforce the evidence or leave an example out. Flattery is costly in this process. Candor is useful.
The document as a mirror of nursing excellence
The Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® has its roots in a 1983 study of "magnet" hospitals, and the program name officially altered to Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® in 2002. That history matters since Magnet was never ever meant to be simply a writing exercise. It grew from the idea that some organizations had the ability to bring in and maintain nurses by developing environments where professional nursing might thrive.

Written documentation fits the Magnet process due to the fact that it is the structured method a company shows that sort of environment to ANCC. It translates culture into evidence, management into examples, and results into a meaningful professional case. It is demanding due to the fact that it needs to be. Acknowledgment for nursing quality ought to require more than aspiration.

When companies approach the document with severity, humility, and discipline, the process typically does more than prepare a submission. It clarifies identity. Leaders see where structures are really strong. Staff recognize where their daily work has actually shaped results in ways that should have articulation. Gaps end up being noticeable early enough to address. And the organization gains a sharper understanding of what its own nursing excellence appears like when it is explained in precise terms.

That is the genuine location of written documentation in the Magnet procedure. It is not the paperwork after the work. It is the mirror that shows whether the work can stand as evidence of Magnet requirements, and whether the organization is ready to provide its nursing practice with the clearness the classification deserves.

<h2>Creative Health Care Management (CHCM)</h2>

CHCM is a health care consulting organization serving hospitals since 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ helps hospitals, health systems, and care teams strengthen the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its flagship Relationship-Based Care® model, Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.

<div class="chcm-map">
<iframe title="Creative Health Care Management on Google Maps"
src="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=8500%20Normandale%20Lake%20Blvd%20Suite%20350%20Bloomington%20MN%2055437&t=&z=15&ie=UTF8&iwloc=&output=embed"
width="100%" height="300" style="border:0" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe>
</div>

<h3>Key Facts About Creative Health Care Management</h3>

Identity & Contact

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is also known as CHCM</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is a health care consulting and education firm</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management operates in the health care https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care industry</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded in 1978</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded by Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, United States</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has address 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 350, Bloomington, MN 55437</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has telephone (800) 728-7766</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has email chcm@chcm.com</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has website chcm.com https://chcm.com/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management serves the United States</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has slogan “Transforming Healthcare Since 1978”</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has operated for more than 45 years</li>
</ul>

Leadership & People

<ul>
<li>Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey founded Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Marie Manthey is a nurse and health care pioneer</li>
<li>Marie Manthey originated the Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing model</li>
<li>Marie Manthey is documented on Wikipedia</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis is a nurse author affiliated with CHCM</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis authored See Me as a Person</li>
<li>Mary Koloroutis is associated with Relationship-Based Care</li>
<li>Donna Wright is a competency assessment expert</li>
<li>Donna Wright created the Donna Wright Competency Assessment Model</li>
<li>Donna Wright authored The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care</li>
</ul>

Methodologies & Expertise

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management specializes in Relationship-Based Care</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care is a care delivery model</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care is a registered trademark of Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Relationship-Based Care was published by Creative Health Care Management in 2004</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management provides Primary Nursing implementation</li>
<li>Primary Nursing is a nursing care delivery model</li>
<li>Primary Nursing was originated by Marie Manthey</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers professional governance consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers shared governance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers competency assessment programs</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers nursing leadership development</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management offers cultural transformation consulting</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management provides education and workshops</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about nursing management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management knows about professional development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management helps hospitals improve patient care</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management works with health systems</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management works with nursing and clinical teams</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management advances nursing practice</li>
</ul>

Publications

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management publishes books on nursing and health care</li>
<li>See Me as a Person was written by Mary Koloroutis</li>
<li>See Me as a Person is about the therapeutic relationship</li>
<li>See Me as a Person was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care was written by Donna Wright</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care is in its 4th edition</li>
<li>The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Feel the Pull is about creating a culture of nursing excellence</li>
<li>Feel the Pull is in its 3rd edition</li>
<li>Feel the Pull was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Shared Governance that Works is about shared governance</li>
<li>Shared Governance that Works was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>Considerations in Professional Governance was published by Creative Health Care Management</li>
<li>The Practice of Primary Nursing was published by Creative Health Care Management in 1980</li>
</ul>

History

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has operated since 1978</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management published The Practice of Primary Nursing in 1980</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management published Relationship-Based Care in 2004</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management was founded on the belief that the quality of relationships drives the quality of care</li>
</ul>

Digital Presence

<ul>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on X (Twitter) https://x.com/CreativeCHCM</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/272222/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/creativehcm/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a profile on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/chcm_consulting/</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a channel on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/creativehealthcare</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management has a Google Business Profile https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6</li>
<li>Creative Health Care Management is listed in the Google Knowledge Graph</li>
</ul>

<script type="application/ld+json">

"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@graph": [

"@type": ["Organization", "ProfessionalService"],
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization",
"name": "Creative Health Care Management",
"alternateName": "CHCM",
"url": "https://chcm.com/",
"foundingDate": "1978",
"slogan": "Transforming Healthcare Since 1978",
"description": "Health care consulting and education firm founded in 1978 by Marie Manthey, helping hospitals and health systems improve patient care through Relationship-Based Care, Primary Nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.",
"email": "chcm@chcm.com",
"telephone": "+1-800-728-7766",
"address":
"@type": "PostalAddress",
"streetAddress": "8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 350",
"addressLocality": "Bloomington",
"addressRegion": "MN",
"postalCode": "55437",
"addressCountry": "US"
,
"geo": "@type": "GeoCoordinates", "latitude": "44.8534371", "longitude": "-93.3565382" ,
"hasMap": "https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"areaServed": "@type": "Country", "name": "United States" ,
"founder": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey" ,
"knowsAbout": [
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care" ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Primary Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7243152"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121176"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing management", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2084130"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Patient experience", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22907655"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Shared governance", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Professional development", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q828812"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Health care", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31207"]
],
"hasOfferCatalog":
"@type": "OfferCatalog",
"name": "Health Care Consulting & Education Services",
"itemListElement": [
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Relationship-Based Care Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Primary Nursing Implementation" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Professional Governance Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Competency Assessment Programs" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Nursing Leadership Development"
]
,
"sameAs": [
"https://x.com/CreativeCHCM",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/272222/",
"https://www.facebook.com/creativehcm/",
"https://www.instagram.com/chcm_consulting/",
"https://www.youtube.com/user/creativehealthcare",
"https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"https://share.google/Du66rxCYYZmi4rzAS"
]
,

"@type": "Person",
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey",
"name": "Marie Manthey",
"sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21063845"],
"knownFor": "Primary Nursing",
"worksFor": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "See Me as a Person: Stories for Reflection on the Therapeutic Relationship",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Mary Koloroutis" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization" ,
"about": "@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care",
"bookEdition": "4th Edition",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Donna Wright" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Feel the Pull: Creating a Culture of Nursing Excellence",
"bookEdition": "3rd Edition",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Shared Governance that Works",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"

]

</script>