Magnet ® Consulting: Comprehending Empirical Results

28 August 2026

Hospitals and health systems often begin the Magnet journey with a clear ambition and a fuzzy understanding of what the evidence need to really reveal. That gap matters. The Magnet Acknowledgment Program ® is not a branding workout or a file collection project. It is an ANCC program that acknowledges health care companies for nursing quality and quality patient results. Within the existing Magnet framework, Empirical Results is among 5 elements of the model, and it is the component that tends to force the most disciplined thinking.

That is where Magnet ® Consulting typically ends up being beneficial. Not since an outside advisor can make results, and certainly not since consulting replacement for the work of nursing leaders, magnet consulting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?search=magnet consulting staff, and interprofessional groups. Its value, when it is genuine, lies in interpretation, structure, timing, and judgment. A seasoned specialist assists an organization comprehend what type of evidence belongs in the Magnet application, how the written documents is tied to the Application Handbook and Sources of Evidence, and where teams typically confuse activity with outcome.

I have seen organizations speak with confidence about councils, instructional offerings, shared governance structures, leadership rounding, and innovation pilots, only to be reluctant when asked an easy follow-up: what altered, and how do you know? That hesitation normally indicates the exact same problem. The company may be doing strong work, however it has not equated that work into empirical terms that fit Magnet expectations.
The place of Empirical Results in the Magnet model
The existing Magnet framework is arranged around 5 components of the empirical model:
Transformational Leadership Structural Empowerment Exemplary Expert Practice New Understanding, Developments, & & Improvements Empirical Outcomes
This structure did not appear out of thin air. ANCC describes that the model developed from the earlier 14 Forces of Magnetism. After a 2007 analytical analysis of appraisal ratings, the 2008 conceptual design grouped those forces into the five components utilized today. That history matters because it explains why Empirical Outcomes is not an optional add-on. It is woven into the logic of the whole model. The program moved toward a clearer, more combined framework, and outcomes ended up being the place where the model reveals its proof.

For useful purposes, Empirical Results asks a simple question: can the organization show results that support the quality it declares? This is where lots of management teams find that a good story is required however inadequate. Magnet documentation is not only about stating the ideal things. It is about showing evidence that the right things produced measurable effects.
Why the expression itself triggers 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 analytical elegance that surpasses what their teams routinely utilize. Others make the opposite mistake and deal with"results "so broadly that almost any positive story qualifies.

Neither method serves the company well.

In everyday operations, leaders typically use the language of success loosely. An unit director may say a job" worked well" because participation improved, personnel liked the change, and complaints dropped. Those are significant signals, but Magnet language pushes teams to be more specific. What is the result? How was it tracked? Over what duration? How does it line up to the required evidence in the written paperwork? Does the result show improvement, sustainment, or distinction in such a way that is trustworthy and clear?

That does not suggest every result story should check out like a journal manuscript. It implies the organization needs to separate process from result. A management advancement series is a process. A council redesign is a process. A documentation education rollout is a process. Procedures might be very important, however under Magnet examination they normally matter most because of what followed.

This is one of the repeating benefits of Magnet ® Consulting. Excellent consulting does not drown a company in lingo. It sharpens the distinction between effort and evidence. It helps a team stop stating,"We implemented a strong practice,"and begin asking,"What changed after execution, and can we protect that change in the application?"
Magnet is an acknowledgment program, not simply a milestone
ANCC awards Magnet status to organizations that fulfill Magnet requirements and are acknowledged for nursing excellence. That difference might sound apparent, however it forms how empirical proof ought to be assembled. The application is not asking whether a company intends to become exceptional. It is asking whether the organization can show that it has achieved the standards required for recognition.

ANCC also describes the Magnet program as a roadmap to nursing quality. That phrase is very important since it records the double nature of the journey. On one hand, the program acknowledges achievement. On the other, the framework guides the company in how to consider leadership, empowerment, expert practice, innovation, and outcomes. Empirical Outcomes sits at the point where roadmap and recognition meet. It is something to follow the map. It is another to prove where you arrived.

That is why redesignation deserves its own reference. ANCC distinguishes clearly between initial Magnet designation and redesignation. Organizations that already made Magnet Recognition need to pursue redesignation if they wish to continue being recognized. In practical terms, that indicates empirical results are not merely an obstacle for novice candidates. They stay central over time. A healthcare company can not depend on old success. It needs to reveal that excellence is continual and current.
What Magnet consulting can and can not do
The phrase Magnet ® Consulting sometimes raises eyebrows, particularly among clinical leaders who have actually endured pricey advisory engagements that produced polished slide decks and little else. The hesitation is healthy. Consulting in this area must be evaluated by whether it clarifies the work, not by whether it adds theatrical language around it.

An expert can not provide Magnet designation. ANCC does that. A specialist can not reword the standards. ANCC specifies the program and its proof requirements. A consultant likewise can not invent outcomes that do not exist, a minimum of not fairly or usefully. If the underlying nursing structures and efficiency are weak, no one ought to pretend otherwise.

What a strong expert can do is help organizations interpret the framework as it stands. The written documentation for Magnet candidates is tied to Sources of Proof and proof requirements in the Application Manual. That sounds simple up until groups start mapping their real work to those requirements. Really often, the information exists in fragments, the stories are siloed, terminology varies across departments, and timelines do not line up neatly with what the application needs.

In that environment, an expert often operates less like a cheerleader and more like an editor with operational fluency. The work consists of asking uneasy however needed questions. Is this actually an outcome? Is the step relevant to the source of evidence? Does the evidence show the system or only a single group? Are we explaining a one-time success or a pattern? Are we presenting a narrative that the appraisal process can fairly follow?

Those are not attractive concerns, however they prevent costly drift.
The quiet discipline behind a strong empirical story
Most companies do not stop working to tell outcome stories because they lack accomplishments. They stop working since their evidence has actually not been curated with sufficient discipline. Clinical and nursing leaders are busy. They operate in rolling quarters, spending plan cycles, staffing demands, survey preparation, quality initiatives, and management turnover. In that rhythm, groups typically gather a great deal of info without developing a Magnet-ready reasoning for it.

A common pattern looks like this. A unit-based council launches an initiative. Personnel engagement is strong. Leaders are delighted. A few months later, someone saves the presentation slides, a screenshot from a dashboard, and an e-mail praising the result. A year after that, the company starts serious Magnet file preparation and attempts to rebuild what took place, when it occurred, why it mattered, and which measure best supports it. Already, memory is uneven and key people may have moved on.

That is why empirical work benefits organizations that build practices early. They do not simply gather success stories. They record context, approach, timeframe, and results while the information are still fresh. They understand that Magnet recognition is granted by ANCC through an appraisal procedure, which appraisal depends upon written paperwork that makes sense beyond the walls of the organization. What feels obvious internally typically needs far more specific framing when gotten ready for external review.

ANCC likewise provides digital tools and guides to support the appraisal procedure and interim monitoring during designation. That reality is easy to overlook, however it enhances a larger point. The Magnet journey is structured. Organizations are not expected to improvise from scratch. Still, tools do not replace judgment. Someone needs to choose what to highlight, what to exclude, and how to connect the evidence coherently.
When outcome language gets sloppy
If I needed to name one phrase that triggers difficulty in empirical discussions, it would be"we can reveal enhancement in everything."That is rarely real, and even when performance is broadly strong, claiming universal improvement produces unnecessary danger. Better to be precise than sweeping.

Empirical Outcomes does not reward inflated language. It rewards defensible proof. A measured, truthful account carries more weight than a broad claim that can not hold up under scrutiny. If an organization enhanced in one location, sustained strong efficiency in another, and is still developing in a 3rd, that is not a weakness in itself. It is truth. The problem starts when groups feel pressure to overstate.

This is another location where Magnet ® Consulting can be valuable, provided the expert is honest. Strong advisors do not encourage companies to stretch definitions. They help leaders choose the most credible examples, align them to the evidence requirements, and prevent weakening strong work with exaggerated phrasing.

A disciplined empirical narrative typically has a couple of characteristics. It understands what the procedure is. It mentions the relevant context. It ties the result to the practice or structure being talked about. It avoids implying more than the evidence 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 four components
It is appealing to separate Empirical Results as the"data chapter"of Magnet, however that is not how the design works. The five components are distinct, yet deeply linked. Transformational Leadership, Structural Empowerment, Exemplary Professional Practice, and New Knowledge, Developments, & Improvements all create the conditions in which empirical results emerge and can be demonstrated.

That relationship has useful implications. If an organization treats Empirical Outcomes as a late-stage documentation task, it will usually battle. Outcomes are formed upstream. Leadership top priorities influence what is determined. Structural empowerment impacts whether staff can drive and sustain modification. Expert practice figures out whether care shipment corresponds and liable. Innovation and improvement work produce chances for quantifiable advancement.

A fully grown Magnet strategy recognizes that empirical results are not produced in a vacuum. They are the visible result of an operating system. When that system is healthy, proof event ends up being simpler because meaningful outcomes are already part of operational life. When the system is fragmented, the application procedure exposes the fractures quickly.
The historic viewpoint assists leaders make much better choices
The Magnet program traces its roots to a 1983 study of"magnet "hospitals, and ANA's Magnet pages keep in mind that the program name officially altered to Magnet Recognition Program ® in 2002. That history deserves keeping in mind, particularly for leaders who feel buried under contemporary compliance language. The original idea was grounded in understanding organizations that brought in and kept nursing excellence. The modern-day program has official structure, hallmark guidelines, application fees, appraisal review fees, and documentation expectations, however the core concern stays identifiable: what does nursing quality appear like in organizational life, and how can it be verified?

Empirical Results is one of the clearest answers to that question. It turns credibility into proof. It asks the organization to show, not merely declare, that the conditions of excellence exist and productive.

That is likewise why logo use and terminology matter more than some groups anticipate. Magnet is an official ANCC acknowledgment program with trademark-protected language, consisting of terms such as Journey to Magnet Excellence ®. The main Magnet logos may be utilized by designated organizations under trademark rules. Precision is built into the program at every level, from naming conventions to appraisal expectations. Groups that respect that precision in their language generally perform much better when they assemble evidence. The habits are related.
Practical pressure points that are worthy of attention early
Organizations getting ready for Magnet frequently underestimate where the friction will develop. It is not constantly in significant spaces. More often, it appears in common functional joints, where strong work has actually occurred however has 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 terminology between regional tasks and Magnet language weak timelines that make it tough to link intervention and outcome overreliance on anecdote when a more powerful quantifiable result exists late discovery that redesignation demands present, continual proof, not tradition success
None of these issues are uncommon, and none are resolved by writing skill alone. They require coordination, disciplined review, and enough time for leaders to challenge presumptions before the final document is assembled.
Costs, timing, and the surprise rate of bad preparation
ANCC posts different Magnet application and appraisal cost schedules, consisting of an online application charge and appraisal evaluation charges due at written file submission. Even without discussing specific amounts, the functional point is apparent. Magnet preparation has real financial implications, and bad preparation makes those costs harder to justify.

When organizations start the procedure without a clear technique for empirical evidence, they typically spend more time than anticipated reconciling meanings, chasing after historical data, and revising narratives that never ever rather fit the documented requirements. That rework is costly in manner ins which do not constantly appear on a cost schedule. It takes in executive attention, nursing leadership bandwidth, analyst time, and staff goodwill.

This is one factor some organizations engage Magnet ® Consulting early rather than late. The very best return is not cosmetic editing at the end. It is previously positioning around what evidence is needed, how it must be organized, and where the organization really stands relative to the model. In some cases the most important recommendations a consultant can offer is not"you are prepared, "however "you require another cycle to reinforce your empirical story."

That advice can be frustrating. It can likewise save a company from requiring a timeline that weakens the submission.
Judgment matters more than volume
A big volume of material does not immediately make a strong Magnet application. In truth, extreme material can obscure the best evidence if the company has not made disciplined choices. Empirical Outcomes is especially susceptible to this problem due to the fact that teams typically equate severity with large information volume.

A more reliable method is curation. Select proof that matters, trustworthy, and plainly connected to the source of proof. State what occurred without bloating magnet consulting group solutions https://chcm.com/solutions/magnet-consulting/ the story. If there is a significant outcome, trust it enough to present it plainly. If there are limitations, acknowledge them without apology.

This is where skilled customers, internal or external, can make a significant distinction. 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 beneath pages of setup? These are editorial questions, but they are tactical editorial questions.
A steadier way to consider readiness
Organizations sometimes ask the incorrect preparedness question. They ask," Do we have enough examples?"A better question is,"Do our examples show recognizable, defensible quality under the Magnet structure?"Those are not the exact same thing.

Readiness is not a sensation of abundance. It is the capability to present evidence that aligns to ANCC's documented expectations and stands up to appraisal. It includes understanding the distinction between classification and redesignation, comprehending where the written paperwork requirements come from, and acknowledging that the 5 Magnet elements are interdependent rather than separate silos.

Empirical Results tends to bring clearness to all of that since it withstands wishful thinking. If the outcomes are strong and well organized, the more comprehensive story normally becomes simpler to inform. If the outcomes are weak, vague, or poorly linked, the organization gets an early warning that other parts of the application may likewise require sharper work.

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

For leaders considering Magnet ® Consulting, that ought to be the standard for worth. Not whether the consultant promises a smoother journey. Not whether the language sounds advanced. The genuine concern is whether the work assists the company comprehend its own proof more clearly, align it more honestly to Magnet expectations, and present it in a manner that reflects the rigor of the program.

When that occurs, consulting has actually done its job. More crucial, the company has done its own job, which is the only foundation 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 Primary Nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ helps nursing and clinical teams transform the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its signature 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>