Magnet ® Consulting: Understanding Empirical Outcomes

17 August 2026

Hospitals and health systems typically begin the Magnet journey with a clear aspiration and a fuzzy understanding of what the evidence need to actually reveal. That space matters. The Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® is not a branding workout or a document collection job. It is an ANCC program that acknowledges health care companies for nursing quality and quality patient outcomes. Within the current Magnet structure, Empirical Outcomes is among five elements of the model, and it is the component that tends to force the most disciplined thinking.

That is where Magnet ® Consulting often becomes helpful. Not due to the fact that an outside advisor can manufacture results, and definitely not since seeking advice from replacement for the work of nursing leaders, staff, and interprofessional groups. Its value, when it is real, lies in analysis, structure, timing, and judgment. A skilled consultant helps an organization understand what sort of proof belongs in the Magnet application, how the written paperwork is tied to the Application Manual and Sources of Proof, and where teams typically puzzle activity with outcome.

I have seen organizations speak with confidence about councils, academic offerings, shared governance structures, management rounding, and innovation pilots, only to hesitate when asked a basic follow-up: what altered, and how do you know? That hesitation usually signifies the very same problem. The organization may be doing strong work, however it has actually not translated that work into empirical terms that fit Magnet expectations.
The place of Empirical Results in the Magnet model
The present Magnet framework is arranged around 5 components of the empirical model:
Transformational Leadership Structural Empowerment Exemplary Professional Practice New Knowledge, Developments, & & Improvements Empirical Outcomes
This structure did not appear out of thin air. ANCC explains that the model progressed from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism. After a 2007 analytical analysis of appraisal ratings, the 2008 conceptual design grouped those forces into the 5 parts used today. That history matters because it explains why Empirical Results is not an optional add-on. It is woven into the logic of the whole model. The program moved toward a clearer, more consolidated framework, and outcomes became the location where the model reveals its proof.

For useful purposes, Empirical Results asks an uncomplicated question: can the organization show results that support the excellence it claims? This is where lots of leadership teams discover that an excellent narrative is needed however inadequate. Magnet paperwork is not just about saying the ideal things. It has to do with showing proof that the right things produced quantifiable effects.
Why the expression itself causes confusion
The term "empirical"can make people overcomplicate the job. Some hear it and presume they need a research portfolio in every area, or a level of statistical sophistication that exceeds what their teams routinely use. Others make the opposite error and treat"outcomes "so broadly that almost any favorable story qualifies.

Neither technique serves the organization well.

In daily operations, leaders typically utilize the language of success loosely. A system director might state a project" worked well" since participation improved, personnel liked the modification, and complaints dropped. Those are meaningful signals, but Magnet language presses teams to be more specific. What is the result? How was it tracked? Over what period? How does it align to the necessary proof in the written paperwork? Does the outcome demonstrate improvement, sustainment, or difference in such a https://chcm.com/about/ https://chcm.com/about/ way that is credible and clear?

That does not imply every outcome story need to check out like a journal manuscript. It means the organization should separate process from result. A leadership advancement series is a process. A council redesign is a process. A documentation education rollout is a process. Procedures might be important, however under Magnet examination they usually matter most since of what followed.

This is one of the recurring benefits of Magnet ® Consulting. Great consulting does not drown an organization in lingo. It hones the distinction between effort and evidence. It helps a group stop saying,"We implemented a strong practice,"and begin asking,"What changed after execution, and can we safeguard that change in the application?"
Magnet is a recognition program, not simply a milestone
ANCC awards Magnet status to organizations that fulfill Magnet standards and are acknowledged for nursing quality. That distinction might sound apparent, however it shapes how empirical proof should be assembled. The application is not asking whether a company intends to become excellent. It is asking whether the organization can demonstrate that it has actually achieved the standards required for recognition.

ANCC also explains the Magnet program as a roadmap to nursing excellence. That phrase is very important since it captures the double nature of the journey. On one hand, the program acknowledges achievement. On the other, the structure guides the organization in how to consider management, empowerment, expert practice, development, and results. Empirical Results sits at the point where roadmap and recognition fulfill. It is one thing to follow the map. It is another to prove where you arrived.

That is why redesignation deserves its own mention. ANCC identifies plainly between initial Magnet designation and redesignation. Organizations that already made Magnet Recognition need to pursue redesignation if they want to continue being acknowledged. In useful terms, that suggests empirical results are not simply a hurdle for first-time candidates. They stay central in time. A healthcare company can not count on old success. It has to reveal that quality is sustained and current.
What Magnet consulting can and can not do
The phrase Magnet ® Consulting often raises eyebrows, especially among clinical leaders who have actually sustained pricey advisory engagements that produced sleek slide decks and little else. The suspicion is healthy. Consulting in this space should be evaluated by whether it clarifies the work, not by whether it adds theatrical language around it.

A specialist can not confer Magnet classification. ANCC does that. A specialist can not reword the standards. ANCC defines the program and its evidence requirements. An expert also can not develop outcomes that do not exist, a minimum of not fairly or usefully. If the underlying nursing structures and performance are weak, no one ought to pretend otherwise.

What a strong consultant can do is help organizations interpret the structure as it stands. The written documents for Magnet applicants is connected to Sources of Proof and evidence requirements in the Application Handbook. That sounds simple till groups begin mapping their actual work to those requirements. Extremely frequently, the information exists in pieces, the stories are siloed, terminology varies across departments, and timelines do not line up neatly with what the application needs.

In that environment, a consultant frequently operates less like a cheerleader and more like an editor with operational fluency. The work consists of asking unpleasant however necessary concerns. Is this really a result? Is the measure relevant to the source of evidence? Does the proof reflect the system or only a single team? Are we describing a one-time success or a pattern? Are we presenting a story that the appraisal procedure can reasonably follow?

Those are not attractive questions, however they avoid expensive drift.
The peaceful discipline behind a strong empirical story
Most companies do not fail to inform outcome stories due to the fact that they lack achievements. They fail due to the fact that their proof has actually not been curated with sufficient discipline. Scientific and nursing leaders are busy. They run in rolling quarters, budget plan cycles, staffing demands, study preparation, quality efforts, and management turnover. Because rhythm, teams often gather a lot of information without establishing a Magnet-ready logic for it.

A typical pattern looks like this. A unit-based council releases an effort. Personnel engagement is strong. Leaders are happy. A couple of months later on, somebody saves the discussion slides, a screenshot from a control panel, and an e-mail praising the outcome. A year after that, the company begins serious Magnet document preparation and attempts to rebuild what occurred, when it occurred, why it mattered, and which procedure finest supports it. By then, memory is irregular and crucial people might have moved on.

That is why empirical work benefits companies that develop habits early. They do not merely gather success stories. They record context, approach, timeframe, and results while the information are still fresh. They understand that Magnet acknowledgment is awarded by ANCC through an appraisal procedure, which appraisal depends on written documentation that makes good sense beyond the walls of the company. What feels obvious internally often requires far more explicit framing when gotten ready for external review.

ANCC also supplies digital tools and guides to support the appraisal process and interim tracking throughout classification. That truth is easy to ignore, but it reinforces a larger point. The Magnet journey is structured. Organizations are not expected to improvise from scratch. Still, tools do not replace judgment. Somebody needs to choose what to highlight, what to exclude, and how to link the evidence coherently.
When outcome language gets sloppy
If I needed to call one expression that triggers difficulty in empirical discussions, it would be"we can show enhancement in whatever."That is seldom real, and even when efficiency is broadly strong, claiming universal improvement produces unnecessary danger. Better to be accurate than sweeping.

Empirical Outcomes does not reward inflated language. It rewards defensible evidence. A determined, truthful account brings more weight than a broad claim that can not hold up under analysis. If a company improved in one area, sustained strong efficiency in another, and is still developing in a third, that is not a weak point in itself. It is reality. The issue begins when teams feel pressure to overstate.

This is another location where Magnet ® Consulting can be important, offered the consultant is candid. Strong consultants do not motivate organizations to stretch meanings. They assist leaders pick the most reliable examples, align them to the evidence requirements, and avoid undermining strong work with exaggerated phrasing.

A disciplined empirical narrative generally has a few qualities. It understands what the step is. It mentions the pertinent context. It connects the outcome to the practice or structure being discussed. It avoids suggesting more than the proof can support. It checks out as though the company understands both its strengths and the limits of its own data.
The relationship in between Empirical Outcomes and the other 4 components
It is tempting to isolate Empirical Results as the"data chapter"of Magnet, however that is not how the design works. The five components are distinct, yet deeply connected. Transformational Leadership, Structural Empowerment, Exemplary Expert Practice, and New Knowledge, Innovations, & Improvements all develop the conditions in which empirical results emerge and can be demonstrated.

That relationship has practical ramifications. If an organization treats Empirical Outcomes as a late-stage documents task, it will often struggle. Outcomes are formed upstream. Management concerns affect what is determined. Structural empowerment impacts whether personnel can drive and sustain modification. Professional practice identifies whether care shipment corresponds and responsible. Innovation and enhancement work create chances for quantifiable advancement.

A fully grown Magnet strategy recognizes that empirical outcomes are not produced in a vacuum. They are the visible outcome of a working system. When that system is healthy, evidence gathering becomes easier because significant results are currently part of operational life. When the system is fragmented, the application process exposes the fractures quickly.
The historic viewpoint helps leaders make much better choices
The Magnet program traces its roots to a 1983 study of"magnet "medical facilities, and ANA's Magnet pages keep in mind that the program name officially changed to Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® in 2002. That history deserves keeping in mind, especially for leaders who feel buried under contemporary compliance language. The initial concept was grounded in comprehending companies that brought in and retained nursing excellence. The contemporary program has official structure, hallmark rules, application costs, appraisal review fees, and documents expectations, however the core question remains identifiable: what does nursing quality look like in organizational life, and how can it be verified?

Empirical Outcomes is among the clearest answers to that concern. It turns reputation into evidence. It asks the company to show, not merely declare, that the conditions of excellence are present and productive.

That is also why logo design usage and terminology matter more than some groups anticipate. Magnet is an official ANCC recognition program with trademark-protected language, including terms such as Journey to Magnet Quality ®. The main Magnet logos may be used by designated companies under trademark guidelines. Precision is developed into the program at every level, from calling conventions to appraisal expectations. Teams that respect that accuracy in their language generally perform better when they assemble proof. The practices are related.
Practical pressure points that deserve attention early
Organizations getting ready for Magnet typically undervalue where the friction will occur. It is not always in significant spaces. More often, it appears in ordinary functional joints, where strong work has happened but has actually not been framed in a Magnet-ready way.

The most common pressure points consist of:
unclear ownership of evidence throughout nursing, quality, and operations inconsistent terms in between local projects and Magnet language weak timelines that make it tough to link intervention and outcome overreliance on anecdote when a stronger measurable result exists late discovery that redesignation needs existing, continual proof, not tradition success
None of these problems are uncommon, and none are resolved by composing skill alone. They require coordination, disciplined review, and enough time for leaders to challenge presumptions before the last document is assembled.
Costs, timing, and the hidden cost of poor preparation
ANCC posts separate Magnet application and appraisal charge schedules, consisting of an online application cost and appraisal evaluation fees due at written file submission. Even without going over particular quantities, the operational point is apparent. Magnet preparation has real monetary implications, and poor preparation makes those expenses more difficult to justify.

When companies begin the process without a clear method for empirical proof, they typically spend more time than expected reconciling definitions, going after historic data, and revising narratives that never rather fit the documented requirements. That rework is costly in ways that do not always appear on a charge schedule. It takes in executive attention, nursing management bandwidth, expert time, and staff goodwill.

This is one reason some organizations engage Magnet ® Consulting early instead of late. The best return is not cosmetic editing at the end. It is previously positioning around what evidence is required, how it must be arranged, and where the organization genuinely stands relative to the model. Often the most valuable guidance a consultant can provide is not"you are all set, "but "you need another cycle to strengthen your empirical story."

That suggestions can be aggravating. It can also save a company from requiring a timeline that deteriorates the submission.
Judgment matters more than volume
A big volume of product does not automatically make a strong Magnet application. In reality, extreme material can obscure the best proof if the organization has actually not made disciplined choices. Empirical Results is specifically susceptible to this problem due to the fact that teams typically relate seriousness with sheer information volume.

A more reliable approach is curation. Select proof that matters, reliable, and clearly linked to the source of proof. State what happened without bloating the narrative. If there is a meaningful result, trust it enough to provide it clearly. If there are limitations, acknowledge them without apology.

This is where experienced reviewers, internal or external, can make a major difference. They check out the draft not as insiders who currently understand the story, but as appraisers who require the reasoning to be obvious on the page. Does the result follow from the practice described? Is the language tighter than it requires to be? Have we buried the strongest result underneath pages of setup? These are editorial concerns, but they are tactical editorial questions.
A steadier method to think of readiness
Organizations often ask the incorrect preparedness concern. They ask," Do we have enough examples?"A better question is,"Do our examples show recognizable, defensible excellence under the Magnet structure?"Those are not the same thing.

Readiness is not a sensation of abundance. It is the ability to present evidence that aligns to ANCC's recorded expectations and stands up to appraisal. It includes knowing the distinction in between classification and redesignation, understanding where the written documentation requirements come from, and recognizing that the 5 Magnet parts are interdependent instead of separate silos.

Empirical Outcomes tends to bring clarity to all of that since it resists wishful thinking. If the results are strong and well organized, the wider story typically becomes much easier to inform. If the outcomes are weak, unclear, or badly connected, the organization gets an early caution that other parts of the application might also need sharper work.

That is the most useful way to understand this element. Empirical Outcomes is not just a reporting category. It is a test of whether the company can translate its nursing quality into evidence that another celebration can evaluate with confidence.

For leaders thinking about Magnet ® Consulting, that ought to be the benchmark for value. Not whether the expert assures a smoother journey. Not whether the language sounds sophisticated. The genuine concern is whether the work helps the company comprehend its own proof more plainly, align it more truthfully to Magnet expectations, and present it in such a way that shows the rigor of the program.

When that takes place, consulting has actually done its job. More vital, the organization has done its own task, which is the only structure Magnet acknowledgment has actually ever accepted.

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

CHCM is a health care consulting and education firm serving hospitals since 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Based 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>