Magnet ® Consulting: How ANCC Structures Magnet Proof Requirements

15 August 2026

Hospitals often start the Magnet journey with a deceptively basic concern: exactly what counts as evidence?

That question usually surface areas after interest is currently high. A primary nursing officer has actually secured executive assistance. Shared governance leaders are stimulated. Quality teams are pulling control panels. Education, research study, and nursing operations are all prepared to contribute. Then the harder reality appears. ANCC does not award Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® status for great intents, strong culture alone, or a stack of detached achievements. It needs written documentation arranged to fulfill particular proof expectations in the Magnet application framework.

That is where Magnet ® Consulting ends up being less about cheerleading and more about disciplined analysis. The work is not merely gathering artifacts. It is comprehending how ANCC structures the case for nursing quality and quality client results, then assisting an organization present that case in a way that is coherent, defensible, and lined up with the model.
What ANCC is really recognizing
Magnet designation is granted by the American Nurses Credentialing Center, the credentialing body through which the American Nurses Association offers these programs. The Magnet Recognition Program ® acknowledges health care organizations for nursing excellence and quality patient results. ANCC likewise describes the program as a roadmap to nursing quality, which matters since it frames the proof burden. Candidates are not just showing that they carry out well in isolated areas. They are showing that excellence is constructed into how nursing management functions, how professional practice is organized, and how results are sustained.

That distinction changes the documents method from the start. A single effective job, even a strong one, does not bring much weight if it sits apart from the organization's wider nursing structures. By contrast, a modest effort can become engaging when it plainly reflects leadership top priorities, professional governance, interdisciplinary practice, development, and quantifiable outcomes. Strong proof lives at the crossway of story and structure.

The Magnet program has roots in a 1983 study of medical facilities that prospered in bring in and keeping nurses throughout a challenging labor market. The program name officially altered to Magnet Recognition Program ® in 2002. Later on, after analytical analysis of appraisal ratings in 2007, the conceptual model developed from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism into the five-component empirical model used today. That history is not trivia. It discusses why evidence requirements now feel more incorporated and outcome-oriented than lots of organizations first expect.
The five-part architecture behind the composed evidence
ANCC's present Magnet framework is organized around 5 elements of the empirical model: Transformational Management, Structural Empowerment, Exemplary Expert Practice, New Knowledge, Developments, & & Improvements, and Empirical Outcomes.

These are not just themes for chapter titles. They are the arranging reasoning behind Magnet evidence requirements. In practice, they produce a structure that asks applicants to show how leadership vision translates into expert systems, how those systems support practice, how practice generates knowing and innovation, and how all of that can be seen in outcomes.

A common error during early preparation is treating the five parts like silos. Medical facilities may assign one team to leadership, another to shared governance, another to quality, and after that assume the final application can simply be sewn together. That normally produces a fragmented narrative. ANCC's model works much better when organizations see it as a linked chain. Transformational leadership must not read like an executive narrative. Structural empowerment should not become a binder of committee lineups. Excellent expert practice ought to not wander into general descriptions of care shipment without a professional nursing lens. New understanding should not be puzzled with separated education activity. Empirical results should not appear as a dashboard dump without any context.

Good Magnet ® Consulting often starts by helping an organization stop arranging proof by departmental ownership and begin sorting it by conceptual purpose.
Where the proof requirements live
ANCC applicants send composed paperwork utilizing Sources of Evidence, or evidence requirements, tied to the Application Manual. That point matters because many internal teams utilize the phrase "proof" delicately, while ANCC uses it in a https://jsbin.com/nubirazume https://jsbin.com/nubirazume a lot more structured method. The Magnet application is not an open-ended portfolio. It is an official written submission aligned to the manual's expectations.

ANCC's crosswalk materials likewise describe the handbook's composed documentation evidence requirements for applicants. For a consulting group or an internal Magnet program workplace, that suggests the job is partly interpretive. The organization needs to understand not only what proof exists, however how ANCC categorizes and expects to see it represented.

In real tasks, this is where confusion tends to increase. Individuals typically assume that if something happened, and it was positive, it belongs in the composed documents. The opposite is typically true. The manual-driven structure forces prioritization. Proof has to work. It requires to respond to a defined expectation, fit within the proper component, and contribute to a larger argument about nursing excellence. A good example that addresses the incorrect requirement is still the incorrect example.

That is one factor fully grown Magnet preparation feels less like gathering whatever and more like curating the ideal things.
What "Sources of Evidence" really suggest in practice
Within Magnet work, a source of proof is not simply a document. It is a demonstration. The demonstration might make use of policies, committee work, quality results, practice changes, leadership actions, or interprofessional cooperation, however the point is not the artifact itself. The point is whether the composed documentation reveals that the company meets the requirement as framed by ANCC.

Experienced teams learn to ask sharper concerns. What is this example proving? Which component does it finest support? Does it reveal structure, procedure, or result, and is that what the proof requirement appears to require? Can the organization explain not just that an initiative happened, but why it mattered and what altered due to the fact that of it?

These concerns avoid a really common problem: over-documenting activity and under-documenting significance. A medical facility might have plentiful records of councils conference, leaders rounding, academic sessions taking place, and tasks being introduced. Yet if the composed narrative does not link those actions to the Magnet design and to outcomes, the submission can still feel thin.

That is why the greatest paperwork groups do not begin by asking every department to send everything they have. They begin by developing a conceptual map of what each requirement is likely asking the company to demonstrate.
The shape of evidence across the five components
Transformational Management normally needs companies to believe beyond titles and org charts. ANCC's framework places leadership at the front since management is anticipated to form direction, not just supervise operations. In paperwork terms, that suggests the greatest material tends to show how nursing leaders assist the organization through modification, align nursing technique with broader organizational objectives, and create conditions for excellence. Leadership evidence is weaker when it reads like generic administration and more powerful when it reveals noticeable impact on professional nursing practice.

Structural Empowerment often brings in an enormous volume of material due to the fact that health centers can point to councils, acknowledgment programs, expert advancement paths, neighborhood activities, and many types of staff engagement. The difficulty is not finding examples. The challenge is selecting examples that show how nursing structures truly empower nurses. A roster of committees shows existence. It does not by itself show empowerment. Written evidence becomes more convincing when it shows how structures move authority, voice, chance, or expert growth better to the bedside nurse.

Exemplary Professional Practice is where numerous companies either shine or end up being unclear. This component asks nursing leaders and experts to articulate what exceptional nursing practice looks like in that particular setting and how it operates in relation to clients, families, groups, and systems. The greatest evidence in this location usually feels near to the work. It has uniqueness. It shows requirements equated into practice, not just declarations of goal. If the prose might explain any hospital, it is usually not particular enough.

New Knowledge, Innovations, & & Improvements can be misunderstood due to the fact that teams often hear "innovation" and think just of large research programs or highly visible technology initiatives. ANCC's structure is more comprehensive than that label recommends. The focus includes brand-new understanding and enhancement, which suggests organizations require to show how learning, questions, and change are developed into nursing practice. The practical concern is whether the composed paperwork shows that nursing adds to improvement rather than merely adopting what others create.

Empirical Results ties the model together. This component reflects the program's emphasis on quality client outcomes and the empirical design itself. Numerous companies feel most comfortable here since they are used to reporting metrics. Yet results paperwork can become one of the weakest areas if it is not well translated. Numbers alone do not develop Magnet proof. Outcomes need to be placed within the context of nursing structures and practice. Otherwise the submission can check out like a quality report that occurs to utilize Magnet terminology.
Why the model moved from forces to components
The shift from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism to the five-component conceptual model was more than a branding update. It reflected ANCC's approach a more integrated empirical approach after statistical analysis of appraisal scores. For specialists and candidates, this has useful consequences.

The earlier force-based thinking frequently encouraged a list mentality. Groups could end up being preoccupied with proving one force after another. The existing five-component structure pushes applicants to inform a more linked story. That tends to raise the standard for composing. It is harder to conceal fragmentation inside a broad part. If leadership, empowerment, practice, development, and results do not line up, readers will feel the gaps.

I have seen companies with exceptional local efforts struggle due to the fact that their evidence resided in separate pockets. An unit had a strong practice improvement. Another had terrific nurse engagement. A business service line had a notable innovation. The quality office had strong outcomes. Yet the written submission ran the risk of feeling like a collage instead of a model of nursing excellence. The five elements expose that issue rapidly. They reward coherence.

That is among the least attractive however most valuable contributions of Magnet ® Consulting. It assists companies discover the through-line.
Written documentation is the main proving ground
The Magnet appraisal procedure includes composed documentation, and ANCC posts appraisal evaluation costs due at written file submission. Even without entering into information beyond the verified framework, this tells you something essential. The composed submission is not a side job. It is central to the appraisal process and significant adequate to anchor part of the cost structure.

That reality alone must influence preparation. Organizations that deal with documents as the last phase of the journey usually produce unnecessary threat. The stronger approach is to build proof with the final written narrative in mind from the start. When leadership rounds, governance councils, practice efforts, instructional efforts, and outcome reviews are all documented with Magnet expectations in view, the final assembly becomes much cleaner.

The opposite technique is painfully familiar in many medical facilities. 2 or 3 years into Magnet preparation, a team recognizes essential examples were never documented in a functional method. Minutes are incomplete. Result baselines are difficult to reconstruct. Ownership has actually changed. The people who led an initiative have actually carried on. The company still has good work, but the proof is weaker than it must be. That is not a quality issue. It is an evidence design problem.
Redesignation alters the lens
ANCC makes a clear distinction between designation and redesignation. Organizations that have already made Magnet Acknowledgment must pursue redesignation to continue being recognized. That may sound procedural, but it impacts evidence method in significant ways.

A first-time candidate is frequently concentrated on proving the company can satisfy the requirement. A redesignation applicant has the included concern of revealing that the requirement has been sustained and restored. The bar is not simply "we still do this." The written proof should show a company that continues to live the model.

That requires discipline. Programs that were once highly noticeable can become regular. Councils still satisfy, leadership structures still exist, and quality evaluations still take place, but the energy behind them may flatten. Redesignation submissions tend to expose whether Magnet principles have actually ended up being ingrained or ritualistic. Consulting support in redesignation years typically centers on this concern: what has developed, what has developed, and what can the company show now that it could not show last cycle?

Sometimes the most excellent redesignation proof is not a remarkable new effort. It is a clearer demonstration of consistency, deeper nurse ownership, or more trusted results gradually. Magnet is about nursing quality, not novelty for its own sake.
Digital tools matter due to the fact that consistency matters
ANCC provides digital tools and guides to support the appraisal procedure and interim monitoring throughout designation. Even without including information not verified here, that point signals ANCC's expectation that Magnet work must be managed methodically instead of informally.

For medical facilities, this normally reinforces 3 realities. First, Magnet evidence is not static. It must be maintained, monitored, and updated. Second, the program is not practically application submission day. There is a continuous responsibility measurement during classification. Third, organizations benefit when their internal proof management is organized enough to support both preparation and monitoring.

This is frequently where consulting either shows its worth or becomes decorative. The best consultants do not just help compose polished stories. They assist organizations establish internal practices for proof stewardship. That includes version control, ownership clearness, file naming discipline, and practical guidelines for how examples are verified before they go into the Magnet file. None of that sounds inspiring in a board discussion. All of it matters when deadlines tighten.
Where companies typically misread the requirement structure
The greatest misunderstanding is that proof requirements are generally about volume. They are not. A puffed up submission can in fact reveal weak tactical judgment. ANCC's structure benefits importance, alignment, and defensible linkage between practice and outcomes.

A 2nd mistaken belief is that each department must independently compose its part. That often produces tonal disparity and duplicated material. More importantly, it blurs the nursing argument. The company may have contributions from quality, human resources, education, informatics, and medical staff partners, but the last composed paperwork still has to read as a nursing excellence submission.

A third mistaken belief is that outcomes can compensate for weak structures. Strong outcomes matter, but Magnet's model is developed around more than outcome pictures. ANCC is acknowledging a system of excellence. If a health center shows strong metrics without convincingly showing the nursing structures and expert practice environment that help produce them, the documents can feel incomplete.

A 4th misconception is that a consultant can fix everything by modifying at the end. Modifying helps, but it can not develop evidence that was never ever constructed, tracked, or analyzed. Efficient Magnet ® Consulting starts well before the last composing phase.
What useful Magnet consulting looks like
There is a practical difference between basic project support and consulting that truly supports Magnet evidence development. The latter generally does 5 things well:
interprets the ANCC framework without overreaching beyond what the manual requires helps the company map genuine examples to the right evidence expectations identifies spaces early enough for leaders to address them shapes a narrative that links leadership, practice, development, and outcomes builds internal capability so the healthcare facility is stronger for redesignation, not just submission
That final point is easy to neglect. If consulting leaves the healthcare facility dependent, it has only done part of the task. The greatest engagements teach nurse leaders and Magnet program groups how to think in ANCC's structure, not just how to complete one application cycle.
Fees, timing, and why planning discipline matters
ANCC posts different Magnet application and appraisal cost schedules, consisting of an online application charge and appraisal evaluation fees due at composed document submission. Even without pricing quote figures, this underscores that Magnet preparation has operational effects. It is not just an expert aspiration. It is a handled organizational project with formal timing and financial commitments.

That reality ought to hone governance. Executive sponsors need visibility into milestones. Nursing leadership needs realistic timelines for evidence development. Writers and customers need enough runway to produce a submission that is both accurate and strategically arranged. Finance and administration need clearness about when costs happen. The process is demanding enough without self-inflicted confusion.

I have actually seen otherwise capable organizations develop stress simply by ignoring sequencing. They introduce evidence collection before clarifying responsibility. They request for examples before defining what qualifies. They start writing before agreeing on who has final editorial authority. None of these errors show a weak nursing culture. They show weak task structure, and Magnet proof work is unforgiving of weak task structure.
The genuine discipline is alignment
When individuals outside the process hear "Magnet proof," they frequently think of binders, prototypes, and long narratives. Those things exist, however they are not the heart of the matter. The heart of Magnet proof is positioning. ANCC's structure asks whether transformational leadership, structural empowerment, exemplary expert practice, new knowledge and improvement, and empirical results fit together in a credible design of nursing excellence.

That is why the best written paperwork tends to feel almost unavoidable when you read it. The examples specify, but not random. The outcomes are strong, however not detached. The management voice is visible, however not self-congratulatory. The expert practice story feels lived, not put together for inspection.

This is likewise why Magnet ® Consulting can be so important when succeeded. It helps organizations translate their everyday nursing truth into the structure ANCC uses to assess quality. Not by inflating claims, and not by forcing a generic design template onto a special organization, however by clarifying what the evidence is in fact meant to prove.

ANCC's framework is requiring since it needs to be. Magnet classification signals that a company has met Magnet standards and is recognized for nursing excellence. Hospitals that earn it are not merely saying they appreciate nursing. They are demonstrating, through structured evidence connected to the Application Manual, that nursing quality shows up in management, embedded in systems, revealed in practice, advanced through knowing, and confirmed in outcomes.

That is the standard. The structure exists to ensure the proof truly supports it.

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

CHCM is a nursing consulting and education company established in 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Located in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ partners with nursing and clinical teams transform the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its proprietary 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>