Magnet ® Consulting: How Composed Documents Fits the Magnet Process

20 August 2026

For organizations pursuing Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® classification, composed paperwork is not a side task or a packaging workout. It is the official narrative of how nursing excellence appears in practice, how management and expert structures support it, and how results reflect it. In practical terms, the written submission is where a healthcare facility or healthcare company translates everyday work into the proof framework required by ANCC, the American Nurses Credentialing Center.

That distinction matters. Many companies do exceptional work long before they believe seriously about Magnet. Nurses lead improvements, councils form practice, leaders buy professional advancement, and client care teams refine what works. None of that immediately becomes Magnet proof. The procedure requires a disciplined conversion of lived practice into composed paperwork tied to ANCC's requirements and proof requirements. This is where Magnet ® Consulting typically ends up being most important, not since outdoors assistance can develop quality, but because strong consulting can assist an organization capture it clearly, accurately, and in a form that lines up with the application manual.

Written paperwork sits at the center of the Magnet process due to the fact that Magnet designation is granted by ANCC based on whether an organization meets the program's requirements for nursing quality. ANCC describes Magnet as both acknowledgment and a roadmap to nursing quality. That double identity discusses why the composing phase feels so substantial. The file is not merely a report. It is the organization's case that its nursing environment, structures, expert practice, innovation efforts, and results meet an acknowledged nationwide standard.
Why the writing carries so much weight
People in some cases assume the tough part of Magnet is the deal with the systems and in the conference room, while the document is simply the last assembly. In my experience, that is in reverse. The work itself is undoubtedly the foundation, however the writing phase is where gaps end up being noticeable. Paperwork has a method of revealing whether a claim is fully grown, whether a process is ingrained, and whether an outcome is truly attributable to the organization's nursing structures and practices.

An executive group might feel great that transformational management is strong. Nurse leaders might understand they have built a culture of accountability and advocacy. Personnel may speak passionately about shared decision-making and expert autonomy. Yet when the company needs to express that truth through ANCC's written evidence requirements, a number of concerns surface area quickly. Can the team reveal the progression of the work? Can it describe the structure in clear functional terms? Can it link practices to results in a way that is concrete rather than aspirational? Can it do so regularly 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 same as proof. Broad declarations about development need grounding in real examples and results. The writing process needs the organization to move from "our company believe we are strong here" to "here is how this standard is revealed and how we understand it."
The function documents plays in the Magnet framework
The present Magnet structure is arranged around five parts of the empirical design. Those parts are Transformational Leadership, Structural Empowerment, Exemplary Professional Practice, New Knowledge, Developments, & & Improvements, and Empirical Outcomes. ANCC's design evolved from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism after analytical analysis and was regrouped into this five-component conceptual model.

Written paperwork exists to demonstrate how an organization satisfies expectations within that structure. That sounds uncomplicated, but in practice it means the document must do 2 jobs at the same time. First, it should be arranged and responsive to ANCC's proof requirements. Second, it should still check out as a meaningful portrait of a genuine company, not as disconnected pieces filed under headings.

This is among the subtler parts of Magnet composing. A rigidly technical document might answer individual requirements but stop working to communicate how the system actually functions. A wonderfully composed file might sound engaging but leave the appraisal procedure with unanswered evidence concerns. The greatest submissions handle both. They stay connected to the required proof while providing a clear, trustworthy account of nursing quality in context.

For example, a section connected to Structural Empowerment should not drift into broad claims about organizational pride. It should explain how structures support nursing involvement, advancement, and influence. A section on Empirical Results can not rely on narrative momentum alone. It needs to reveal outcomes, and it has to provide them in such a way that is defensible. The discipline of Magnet writing is knowing when to expand the lens and when to narrow it.
Where Magnet ® Consulting fits, and where it must not
There is a healthy method to think of Magnet ® Consulting and an unhelpful one. The healthy variation is this: seeking advice from helps a company interpret requirements, construct a reasonable documentation method, enforce order on a large composing effort, and preserve rigor from draft to final submission. The unhelpful variation deals with speaking with as a shortcut or a substitute for internal ownership.

No specialist can produce a Magnet culture on paper. If the nursing structures are thin, if the results are not there, or if leaders and staff do not share a common understanding of practice, the document will eventually reveal those weak points. Excellent consultants understand this and state it plainly. Their role is to help the organization inform the fact more plainly, not to embellish weak evidence.

The best seeking advice from assistance usually brings 3 kinds of discipline. One is alignment, ensuring groups understand the difference between a strong regional story and a Magnet-ready story. Another is consistency, so language, proof standards, and organizational voice do not change from chapter to chapter. The third is judgment, particularly when deciding which examples are fully grown sufficient to consist of and which belong in future cycles rather than the present one.

That judgment matters more than numerous groups anticipate. It is tempting to include every successful task and every accomplishment due to the fact that the company has worked hard. However a larger document is not always a stronger one. In a Magnet submission, importance and clarity matter. A concise, well-supported example typically does more work than a stretching one that attempts to show 10 things at once.
The document is constructed from proof requirements, not from enthusiasm
ANCC's application materials and crosswalk resources make clear that Magnet candidates submit composed documents utilizing Sources of Proof, or proof requirements, tied to the application handbook. That point should anchor the whole preparation process.

Organizations typically start with interest, and that is suitable. Magnet work can stimulate nursing teams, particularly when leaders frame it as part of the wider Journey to Magnet Excellence ®. However interest alone can create a common problem. Groups start gathering stories, presentations, committee notes, and quality wins without very first choosing how each item maps to the proof requirement it is expected to support. Later, the writing group deals with stacks of product however still has a hard time to answer the actual prompt.

A much better technique is to let the proof requirements drive collection and writing from the start. That does not make the process dry. It makes it effective. It also safeguards staff time. Nursing teams are hectic, and documentation requests can become invasive if they are not disciplined. A clear proof map assists everyone comprehend what is required, why it is required, and how it will be used.

This is often where a seeking advice from partner earns its keep. Not by increasing activity, however by minimizing waste. The right concern is not "What do we have?" It is "What is required, what proves it, and what is the cleanest way to explain it?"
What strong written documentation normally has in common
Even though every company's Magnet story is various, strong written documents tends to share a couple of traits.
It is devoted to the ANCC proof requirement it is addressing. It utilizes concrete examples instead of abstract praise. It connects structures and practices to results when outcomes are relevant. It preserves one clear voice even when many contributors are involved. It avoids overemphasizing what the company can fairly support.
Those points may sound apparent, however they are where lots of drafts increase or fall. A typical weak pattern is overstatement. The composing becomes advertising, and the prose begins making claims that the accompanying proof can not fully carry. Another weak pattern is fragmentation. Various sections are drafted by different departments, each with its own vocabulary and assumptions, and the last document reads like five companies stitched together.

There is also a quieter issue that appears in otherwise strong drafts: under-explaining the ordinary. Teams near to the work typically avoid details because they feel regular. Yet regular is precisely what Magnet composing requirements to make noticeable. If a governance structure operates well, describe how. If leaders interact efficiently, describe through what system and with what impact. If a nursing practice change resulted in stronger results, describe what changed in practice, not just that improvement occurred.
The stress in between regional voice and formal standards
One factor Magnet composing can feel difficult is that health centers are trying to protect their own identity while composing to an official standard. Every company has its own language. Some are extremely academic. Some are operational and direct. Some have a deeply collaborative culture that comes through in everything they write. The difficulty is to maintain that genuine voice without drifting away from the discipline the submission requires.

I have actually seen organizations make opposite errors. One group stripped its jotting down so strongly to sound "official" that the file ended up being generic. Another leaned so heavily into local storytelling that reviewers would have had to work too hard to discover the proof logic. Neither is ideal.

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

This is also why a disciplined editorial process matters. The majority of Magnet files are built by numerous hands. System leaders, nursing executives, educators, quality experts, and specialty specialists might all contribute. Without mindful editing, the result can alternate between policy language, marketing language, and academic language. Readers feel the seams instantly. The greatest final files smooth those seams while keeping the compound intact.
Documentation frequently exposes functional reality
One of the most valuable aspects of the composing process is that it reveals the difference between a program that exists and a program that works. That might sound extreme, however it is normally efficient. A council can exist on an organizational chart without materially forming practice. A leadership structure can be in place without demonstrating transformational effect. An expert advancement offering can be readily available without being integrated into the culture.

Written Magnet documents tends to expose that gap since it asks the organization to show not only the existence of structures, however likewise the impact of them. That is especially crucial provided the 5 components of the Magnet model. The model is not simply a checklist of programs. It is a method of comprehending how management, empowerment, expert practice, development, and outcomes work together.

This is one reason organizations benefit from starting documents planning early. Not since writing itself always takes an incredibly long period of time, but since sincere writing might expose work that still needs to grow. A team might discover that an example feels promising but not yet stable adequate to represent the organization. Or it might find that an outcome story is compelling however improperly documented in its current form. Much better to discover that before the submission duration ends up being urgent.
Redesignation changes the writing stance
There is an essential difference in between initial designation and redesignation. ANCC states that organizations that have currently earned Magnet Acknowledgment must pursue redesignation to continue being acknowledged. That status alters the composing position in subtle however significant ways.

A company looking for designation is proving it has satisfied Magnet requirements. A company seeking redesignation is also demonstrating connection, maturity, and continual excellence over time. The file still has to attend to required evidence, but readers are naturally trying to find signs that Magnet concepts are not episodic or campaign-based. They must be embedded in the nursing culture.

That implies redesignation writing frequently requires a more refined sense of what deserves 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 far from the core requirements. The right balance is typically discovered in demonstrating that the company has sustained and advanced its nursing quality, instead of merely preserved old achievements.

This is another location where thoughtful Magnet ® Consulting can help. Redesignation teams in some cases undervalue how different the composing job feels the 2nd time around. The problem is not simply producing another file. It is showing advancement with credibility.
The practical work of gathering and forming evidence
The mechanics of documents matter more than lots of executives expect. The composing itself is only one layer. Underneath it sit evidence collection, variation control, internal evaluation, and choices about what belongs in the https://chcm.com/ https://chcm.com/ final story. ANCC likewise offers digital tools and guides to support the appraisal process and interim tracking during classification, which shows how formal and structured the broader process is.

In real settings, documents projects can wander unless someone owns the architecture. Drafts increase. Supporting files are saved in a lot of locations. Teams debate language that must have been settled by a style guide. Hectic leaders send examples late, and authors attempt to compensate by extending thin material. None of this is unusual. It is just what takes place when a complex organizational story is assembled without adequate governance.

The organizations that handle this best tend to establish a clear internal procedure early. Not an elaborate bureaucracy, just enough structure that individuals know what good proof appears like, who examines it, and how it approaches final narrative form.

A practical review process normally evaluates each draft versus a brief set of questions:
Does this section address the stated evidence requirement directly? Is the example specific adequate to be credible? Are the claims proportionate to what can be supported? Is the writing consistent with the remainder of the document? Would a notified reader outside the company understand what happened and why it matters?
Those questions can conserve enormous time. They also minimize the emotional friction that frequently arises around Magnet composing. Personnel and leaders become connected to examples they have actually endured, naturally so. But the submission is not a scrapbook of meaningful work. It is an official document connected to ANCC requirements. A fair review framework keeps choices concentrated on fit and strength instead of sentiment.
Fees, timing, and why paperwork preparation can not wait
ANCC posts separate Magnet application and appraisal fee schedules, including an online application charge and appraisal evaluation charges due at written file submission. Even without entering figures, that truth alone must form preparation. Written documentation is not simply a narrative milestone. It is tied to a formal development in the Magnet procedure, with timing and cost implications.

That makes hold-up costly in more ways than one. When documents preparation begins far too late, companies often pay for the rush through staff fatigue, revamp, and missed out on opportunities to strengthen evidence. The problem is rarely that groups are unwilling. It is that medical operations always have rightful priority, and composing expands to fill whatever time remains unless leaders protect it.

Experienced organizations deal with the writing duration as a serious operational job. They designate liable leaders, define review stages, and set expectations for responsiveness. If they work with specialists, they do so with clarity about roles. Internal leaders own the content. Professionals support interpretation, preparing discipline, and editorial coherence. That department tends to produce the healthiest outcome since the document stays unmistakably the company's own.
What written documentation can not do
It is useful to state plainly what documentation can not accomplish. It can not make up 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 throughout service lines. And it can not carry a Magnet effort that lacks executive and nursing leadership commitment.

That might sound blunt, however it is really assuring. The writing does not ask a company to end up being something artificial. It asks the organization to reveal, with discipline and sincerity, what it has actually built. When that work is genuine, documentation becomes an act of clarification rather than performance.

This point of view also helps organizations use Magnet ® Consulting sensibly. The best consulting relationship is not developed on reliance. It is built on transparency. Consultants should be able to say where the story is strong, where it is thin, and where the organization needs to decide whether to enhance the evidence or leave an example out. Flattery is pricey in this procedure. Candor is useful.
The document as a mirror of nursing excellence
The Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® has its roots in a 1983 research study of "magnet" medical facilities, and the program name formally altered to Magnet Recognition Program ® in 2002. That history matters since Magnet was never ever meant to be simply a composing exercise. It grew from the idea that some companies were able to bring in and keep nurses by developing environments where expert nursing could thrive.

Written paperwork fits the Magnet procedure due to the fact that it is the structured method an organization demonstrates that sort of environment to ANCC. It equates culture into evidence, leadership into examples, and results into a coherent professional case. It is demanding because it should be. Acknowledgment for nursing quality should need more than aspiration.

When organizations approach the file with seriousness, humbleness, and discipline, the procedure typically does more than prepare a submission. It clarifies identity. Leaders see where structures are really strong. Personnel acknowledge where their daily work has actually formed outcomes in ways that should have expression. Gaps become visible early enough to address. And the company gains a sharper understanding of what its own nursing quality looks like when it is described in exact terms.

That is the real location of written documents in the Magnet process. It is not the paperwork after the work. It is the mirror that reveals whether the work can stand as proof of Magnet standards, and whether the company is all set to present its nursing practice with the clarity the designation deserves.

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

Creative Health Care Management is a health care consulting organization serving hospitals since 1978 by nurse leader Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ works alongside health care organizations improve 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>