Applying the 4 Secret Questions in the Donna Wright Proficiency Assessment Design ™.

The Donna Wright Proficiency Assessment Design ™ has actually stayed relevant for an easy reason: it asks leaders to stop treating proficiency as an annual documentation event and start treating it as a focused, tactical practice. In healthcare, that distinction matters. Time is restricted, practice environments change rapidly, and staff know the distinction between a proficiency process that hones care and one that merely fills a binder.

At the center of the donna wright proficiency assessment design is a practical screen for choosing what is worthy of attention. Rather than designating every worker the very same long checklist every year, the model is commonly explained through four concerns: what is new, what is changing, what is high-risk, and what is problematic. Those questions sound simple, and they are. What makes them powerful is disciplined use.

In genuine settings, competency assessment tends to drift in two unhelpful directions. One is overbreadth, where organizations try to cover whatever and wind up teaching extremely little deeply. The other is practice, where last year's subjects return since they recognize, not because they are still the best priorities. The four questions right both issues. They pull attention back to present conditions, current danger, and real efficiency needs.

This is one reason proficiency assessment in healthcare Donna Wright continues to resonate with nurse leaders, teachers, and expert development experts. The model is associated with ownership, empowerment, and responsibility. It likewise centers the learner in recognition, rather than relying entirely on top-down screening. That is a significant shift. Staff are not passive recipients of annual education. They help identify where competence matters most, and they take part in showing it through techniques that fit the work.
Why the four questions matter more than a long annual checklist
Many health care organizations have acquired proficiency systems that attempt to be reasonable by being identical. Everyone completes the exact same packet, endures the very same content, and repeats validations on topics they currently carry out securely every day. It feels efficient on paper. At the system level, it often creates fatigue and weak engagement.

The 4 concerns alter the discussion from "What do we constantly cover?" to "What in fact needs attention now?" That difference is not cosmetic. If a department has actually presented new equipment, revised a crucial procedure, experienced repeated issues with a specific workflow, or manages tasks with serious client security ramifications, those are the subjects that deserve time first.

This method also helps leaders safeguard their choices. When staff ask why a proficiency has been assigned, the answer is not "since it is on the yearly list." The answer is tied to a specific reasoning. It is brand-new. It has changed. It carries high risk. It has ended up being problematic in practice. Staff are far more likely to respect the procedure when the reasoning is visible and grounded.

The model's collaborative nature matters here. Sources describing competency donna wright regularly emphasize collaboration in between staff and management. That is not a soft principle. It is operationally beneficial. Frontline staff typically recognize changes, workarounds, repeating errors, and genuine training gaps before those issues show up nicely in a report. A manager or educator who uses the four concerns well generally listens before assigning.
Start with "What's brand-new?"
Newness is one of the easiest competency sets off to determine, but it still needs judgment. New does not only suggest a major innovation purchase. It can describe a new item, new policy, new devices, or a recently presented process. In the Donna Wright structure, these are exactly the sort of topics that are worthy of review due to the fact that personnel can not be presumed proficient in something they have not yet had the chance to incorporate into practice.

A useful error to avoid is dealing with every brand-new item as similarly substantial. Some changes are minor and can be handled through short communication. Others change workflow, demand technical skill, or impact patient security. The competency concern is not merely whether something is new. It is whether the brand-new component produces a need for validation.

Consider a system that begins using a new gadget at the bedside. The requirement is not automatically a class session for every single staff member followed by a composed quiz. Depending upon the practice environment, leaders may select another validation technique that better reflects actual efficiency, such as guided practice, proof from everyday work, case research study discussion, peer review, or return presentation. One of the strengths of the model is that it does not decrease evaluation to one format. Sources associated with the design note numerous recognition techniques, and that versatility is essential since a written test can confirm acknowledgment, while practice-based methods expose whether safe usage can be carried out under real conditions.

This is likewise where a donna wright competency worksheet can be beneficial. Whether a company utilizes a main design template or an internally adjusted tool, the worksheet concept assists teams record why a topic has emerged. If the answer is "new infusion gadget," "brand-new documents requirement," or "new product used in wound care," that creates a clear and defensible link between the work environment and the proficiency plan.

The practical value of asking what is new is that it avoids unsafe assumptions. Healthcare groups adapt rapidly, and leaders in some cases error familiarity for mastery. A process can be presented effectively in a conference and still need validation weeks later when it satisfies real-world disruptions, staffing pressures, and client complexity.
"What's changing?" frequently reveals the covert gaps
Change is various from newness. A practice may be well developed, yet a revised procedure, upgraded policy, or changed expectation can create just as much danger as a completely brand-new process. In some departments, changes create more confusion than new initiatives since personnel presume they already know the task.

This is where the four-question approach reveals its sophistication. It acknowledges that competency problems frequently arise in transitions. People do not struggle just when encountering unknown work. They likewise have a hard time when familiar work has moved just enough to need unlearning and relearning.

A common example is a modified treatment. Personnel may continue to carry out according to the old requirement if interaction has not been reinforced through validation. Another example is workflow reconfiguration, where the order of steps or responsibility points modifications although the general job name remains the same. If leaders only ask what is brand-new, they miss out on these hazards. If they ask what is changing, they capture them.

In practice, this question works best when checked out with staff, not just reviewed at the administrative level. Frontline clinicians frequently know which changes are creating friction. They can tell you where revised policy language is being analyzed inconsistently, where handoffs have become less dependable, or where a change in products has actually modified method. Those insights are precisely what a tactical proficiency procedure must capture.

This is one reason the donna wright competency assessment model is typically referred to as outcomes-driven. It is not arranged around activity for activity's sake. The objective is to focus energy where a modification is probably to impact performance, consistency, or safety.
"What's high-risk?" keeps the procedure tied to patient safety
Every role in healthcare includes jobs that carry disproportionate repercussion. A procedure might be performed occasionally yet demand a high level of proficiency because the margin for mistake is small. High-risk work is worthy of continual attention even if it is not new and even if no obvious current issue has occurred.

This concern is where many organizations end up being more disciplined. Without it, competency programs can end up being dominated by what shows up or current. High-risk work, specifically if it is done quietly and properly the majority of the time, can be ignored. The four-question framework pulls it back into view.

High-risk does not need to imply remarkable. It suggests that failure would matter. The repercussion might include patient harm, severe workflow failure, or a breach in a crucial standard. In useful terms, leaders ought to ask which aspects of the task require strong validation since the stakes are naturally high.

There is also a trade-off here. If leaders categorize too many regular jobs as high-risk, the classification declines and the competency concern broadens once again. If they categorize too couple of, crucial safeguards are missed out on. Profundity matters. The concern ought to be applied with enough discipline that high-risk remains meaningful.

This is one area where personnel involvement can improve the quality of decisions. Experienced clinicians typically understand which tasks look easy to outsiders however become complicated under pressure. A bedside process that seems straightforward in orientation might become high-risk when patient skill, disturbances, devices variation, or urgent timing enter the photo. The model's collaborative style develops space for those observations.

When teams discuss high-risk subjects freely, the talk about proficiency evaluation frequently become more useful. Instead of unclear remarks such as "needs evaluate" or "continue annual education," leaders and peers can keep in mind why the proficiency should have attention. A more powerful remark may indicate that the task is irregular however high effect, or that self-confidence appears high while efficiency variation still exists. Those distinctions assist move competency from compliance language to actionable language.
"What's troublesome?" is where honesty pays off
The most revealing of the four concerns is typically the last one. Asking what is troublesome requires a culture that can endure sincerity. Not blame, not humiliation, just honest acknowledgment that some parts of practice are not going as well as they should.

A troublesome area may be identified through patterns personnel are seeing, repeating confusion, irregular technique, or workflow breakdowns. The point is not to turn every issue into a competency event. The point is to discover when a pattern suggests the requirement for validation and support.

This concern is especially valuable due to the fact that it captures what formal plans in some cases miss out on. New initiatives receive attention. Policy modifications are generally tracked. High-risk work might already rest on management radar. Bothersome work, nevertheless, typically lives in the gray zone of "everyone knows this is shaky, but nobody has called it." The Donna Wright technique gives teams a genuine way to call it.

Handled well, this concern can enhance spirits instead of harm it. Staff generally understand where the rough areas are. What annoys them is being evaluated on peripheral subjects while obvious daily pain points remain untouched. When leaders utilize proficiency evaluation to address a genuine issue, trustworthiness rises.

Handled poorly, however, this question can become punitive. That is the edge case worth mentioning. If staff think "bothersome" implies "we are looking for who ruined," they will hide issues. If they understand it to suggest "we are determining where individuals require support, clearer validation, or more trusted practice approaches," involvement improves. The culture of success connected with this design is not abstract. It is the distinction in between surveillance and learning.
Turning the 4 concerns into a working choice process
A group does not need a complex infrastructure to start utilizing these concerns well. What it does require is consistency. The concerns must be asked routinely enough that competency planning reflects the existing environment instead of a once-a-year snapshot.

A simple working rhythm typically looks like this:
Ask the four concerns with both leaders and personnel involved. Sort the subjects by significance to the particular role or unit. Choose validation approaches that match the actual skill or behavior being assessed. Document talk about proficiency assessment clearly enough that the reasoning is visible. Review competency evaluation results for patterns, not just completion.
That rhythm sounds nearly obvious, yet it is where lots of programs either become sharp or drift into repeating. The greatest groups do not stop at determining subjects. They narrow them. A system might surface 10 possible problems when discussing what is new, altering, high-risk, and bothersome. Not all 10 should automatically become formal proficiencies. Prioritization matters.

The Donna Wright model has actually been described as tactical, and this is where technique enters. If a subject is important however already demonstrated well in daily work, a lighter validation approach may be enough. If a topic is high-risk and performance has actually been unequal, more robust validation may be warranted. The point is alignment, not volume.
Choosing validation techniques that fit the work
One of the useful advantages related to this design is using multiple recognition techniques. Sources discussing the method note that companies can utilize methods such as assisted practice, proof of day-to-day work, peer review, case research studies, and return demonstrations. That variety matters due to the fact that competence in health care is not one-dimensional.

A composed post-test might suffice to validate knowledge of a revised policy. It may be a poor choice for validating a hands-on task under real conditions. A return presentation might expose technical actions clearly, yet still miss decision-making if the scenario is too scripted. Peer evaluation can emerge strong insights about consistency and professionalism, however it depends on trust and clarity. Proof of day-to-day work can be powerful due to the fact that it reflects real practice, though it needs leaders to define what proof counts.

This is where a great deal of donna wright proficiency examples end up being genuinely helpful, not due to the fact that companies need to copy each other, however because examples remind leaders to match the method to the proficiency. If the issue is a brand-new piece of equipment, assisted practice and return demonstration may fit well. If the problem is altering documents expectations, evidence from everyday work might be more significant. If the concern is a troublesome interaction pattern, case research study discussion or peer review might yield better insight than a checklist.

The learner-centered nature of the model likewise deserves attention here. When employees are associated with how competence is demonstrated, evaluation becomes less performative and more accurate. Staff often understand which technique permits them to show safe practice best. That does not mean anything goes. It means leaders can preserve standards while respecting the truth of adult knowing and clinical work.
Making the worksheet and paperwork count
A donna wright competency worksheet must https://elliottnltw575.cloudhinter.com/posts/comments-on-proficiency-assessment-that-motivate-favorable-employee-habits https://elliottnltw575.cloudhinter.com/posts/comments-on-proficiency-assessment-that-motivate-favorable-employee-habits never become simply another type. Its worth lies in making reasoning noticeable. If a proficiency is selected since it is brand-new, altered, high-risk, or bothersome, that must be clear in the documents. If a validation technique was selected since it finest fits the ability, that must be clear too.

This matters for numerous reasons. Initially, it strengthens consistency throughout leaders. Second, it enhances communication with personnel. Third, it makes future review more meaningful because groups can look back and see not only what was appointed, but why. Over time, that record supports better judgment.

Documentation quality also impacts the usefulness of proficiency assessment results. Results need to imply more than pass or complete. They must help leaders identify patterns. Are personnel demonstrating skills smoothly in day-to-day work? Are repeated questions developing around the exact same changed treatment? Are specific high-risk subjects requiring much deeper assistance? Are issue locations improving after validation, or are they lingering?

If the outcomes are decreased to conclusion portions alone, much of the design's worth is lost. Conclusion matters, of course, however it is not the same as insight. The function of competency assessment results in this structure is to inform action.
What experienced leaders see for
After a couple of cycles, patterns begin to appear. Some teams over-identify topics since they are distressed about missing out on something. Others under-identify because they do not wish to add burden. Both tendencies are reasonable. Neither produces a sharp proficiency program.

The leaders who utilize this model finest typically do 3 things well. They separate what is academic from what is competency-based. They invite staff to recognize what is really affecting practice. And they withstand the urge to verify everything with the very same method.

They likewise focus on language. Talk about competency evaluation need to be specific sufficient to guide action. "Needs improvement" is weak. "Inconsistency kept in mind after recent treatment change" is better. "Demonstrates safe day-to-day efficiency, validation completed through proof of practice" is much better still. Specific comments support training, follow-up, and trend review.

It is likewise worth keeping in mind that not every issue emerged by the 4 questions is resolved by a competency process. Sometimes the concern is workflow style, interaction structure, staffing pressure, or unclear policy language. Fully grown leaders understand the distinction. Competency assessment is effective, but it is not a repair for every single functional problem. Utilizing it for the incorrect issue can waste effort and frustrate staff.
When the model changes the culture, not just the forms
The most meaningful shift with the donna wright proficiency assessment design is cultural. On paper, it may look like an approach for choosing topics and verifying efficiency. In practice, it can alter how groups think of proficiency itself.

Instead of asking employees to repeatedly show what they currently succeed simply because that is how the annual procedure has constantly worked, the design asks companies to pay attention. What is in fact taking place in the environment? What is worthy of focus now? Where is risk focused? Where is support required? Those are management concerns as much as educational ones.

That is likely why the design has actually been embraced in different healthcare settings, consisting of continuous yearly proficiency programs and nurse residency contexts. It offers organizations a structure without making them stiff. It supports accountability without requiring a simply top-down system. And it appreciates the reality that health care skills is dynamic, contextual, and finest examined through approaches that fit the work.

Applied thoughtfully, the 4 key concerns keep competency assessment truthful. They safeguard time, sharpen concerns, and make validation more meaningful for individuals doing the work. For leaders attempting to move beyond annual regular and towards real practice significance, that is not a little enhancement. It is the entire point.

<!-- ============================================================
CHCM — SEO Neo NAP / BLURB BLOCK (paste as raw HTML)
Structure: (1) heading (2) intro paragraph (3) GBP map (4) triple list (5) JSON-LD
Facts source: projects/premazon/chcm/docs/entity-facts.md (all verified 2026-08-11)
SPIN: only the intro prose uses a. Triple list, NAP facts, and JSON-LD are CONSTANT.
JSON-LD has no "|" chars, so spinners that require a pipe will not touch it.
============================================================ -->

<!-- 1) HEADING -->
<h2>Creative Health Care Management (CHCM)</h2>

<!-- 2) INTRO PARAGRAPH (spun) -->

Creative Health Care Management (CHCM) is a nursing consulting and education company established in 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Based in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ works alongside nursing and clinical teams improve the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its proprietary Relationship-Based Care&reg; model, Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.

<!-- 3) GBP MAP EMBED (no API key required) -->
<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>

<!-- 4) SEMANTIC TRIPLE LIST (subject &rarr; predicate &rarr; object) -->
<h3>Key Facts About Creative Health Care Management</h3>

<strong>Identity &amp; Contact</strong>

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

<strong>Leadership &amp; People</strong>

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

<strong>Methodologies &amp; Expertise</strong>

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

<strong>Publications</strong>

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

<strong>History</strong>

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

<strong>Digital Presence</strong>

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

<!-- 5) JSON-LD TRIPLE GRAPH (constant on every placement) -->
<script type="application/ld+json">

"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@graph": &#91;

"@type": &#91;"Organization", "ProfessionalService"&#93;,
"@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": &#91;
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care" ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Primary Nursing", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7243152"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121176"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing management", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2084130"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Patient experience", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22907655"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Shared governance", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Professional development", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q828812"&#93; ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Health care", "sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31207"&#93;
&#93;,
"hasOfferCatalog":
"@type": "OfferCatalog",
"name": "Health Care Consulting & Education Services",
"itemListElement": &#91;
"@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"
&#93;
,
"sameAs": &#91;
"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"
&#93;
,

"@type": "Person",
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey",
"name": "Marie Manthey",
"sameAs": &#91;"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21063845"&#93;,
"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"

&#93;

</script>