What's New, What's Changing, What's High Threat, What's Problematic: A Donna Wright Framework

Competency operate in healthcare often goes off track for an easy reason: organizations try to determine everything, every year, in the same way, whether it matters or not. Personnel sit through blanket reviews, leaders go after conclusion rates, and everyone senses the distinction in between a meaningful evaluation and a yearly routine. The Donna Wright Proficiency Evaluation Design addresses that tension straight. It is not constructed around volume. It is built around relevance.

The model, developed by Donna Wright, a nurse and expert development expert, has actually been referred to as a strategic and outcomes-driven technique to proficiency evaluation in healthcare. It has actually likewise been utilized for more than thirty years, which matters. In practice, techniques that last tend to do so since they resolve operational problems that educators and supervisors run into repeatedly: a lot of competencies, insufficient time, and inadequate connection between education and real risk.

At the center of the donna wright proficiency assessment model is a set of four concerns that assist leaders and personnel identify which competencies deserve attention. Those questions are uncomplicated, but they are more powerful than they look since they require prioritization.
What's new? What's changing? What's high risk? What's problematic?
That frame is deceptively practical. It offers systems and departments a disciplined method to move far from generic yearly checkoffs and toward what really affects patient care, workflow, and safety.
Why these 4 concerns work so well
In many healthcare facilities and centers, competency conversations get muddled because individuals blend together extremely various sort of requirements. A new infusion pump is not the very same concern as a longstanding pattern of documents mistakes. A revised policy is not the same as a rare treatment that can trigger serious harm if carried out improperly. The four-question structure separates those classifications cleanly.

"What's brand-new" records fresh needs on practice. That may mean a new product, a brand-new tool, or a new policy. Personnel do not require a philosophical argument to understand why this matters. If something has actually gotten in the workplace for the very first time, competency assessment may be needed due to the fact that no one has prior experience with that exact item or procedure. In real settings, this classification is frequently the most convenient to acknowledge and the most convenient to justify.

"What's changing" sounds similar, however it asks a different question. Here the issue is not novelty alone. The concern is that an established procedure, treatment, or expectation has shifted. That difference matters due to the fact that people can be tripped up by familiar work that is no longer expected to be performed in the familiar method. In my experience, this is where lots of companies miss out on threat. Teams presume that since a task is not brand-new, it does not need concentrated assessment. Then a modified practice rolls out, compliance is uneven, and everybody marvels why the change never ever totally landed.

"What's high danger" puts the spotlight where damage could be severe, even if the event is uncommon. This is one of the greatest parts of competency evaluation in healthcare Donna Wright is understood for. It acknowledges that frequency ought to not be the only motorist. Some responsibilities are naturally high stakes. A team might perform them every day or only periodically, however the consequences of poor performance validate concentrated validation.

"What's bothersome" asks leaders and staff to be honest about where the friction is. This category is grounded in reality instead of aspiration. If an unit keeps seeing the exact same concern, whether that concern appears in practice patterns, workflow confusion, or repeating mistakes, it belongs in the conversation. The value here is cultural as much as academic. Groups stop pretending that competency preparation is abstract and start using it to resolve the areas that consistently trigger trouble.
A design that shifts ownership closer to practice
One of the most essential features of the design is that it highlights collaboration in between personnel and management to recognize which proficiencies matter for a role or unit. That is a significant departure from heavily centralized systems where yearly competency subjects are selected far from the bedside or from the point of care.

That collective style tends to enhance both credibility and uptake. Frontline staff understand where the work is changing. They understand which jobs are high threat in actual operations, not simply on paper. They understand where near misses, confusion, or disparity are showing up. Management, for its part, brings the more comprehensive view of organizational concerns, policy shifts, and strategic needs. When the 2 point of views fulfill, the proficiency plan becomes more intelligent.

This is also where the model ends up being clearly human. It centers the student or worker in the recognition procedure instead of relying just on top-down screening. That point is worthy of more attention than it normally gets. A system that only tests people can produce compliance information, but it does not always produce ownership. A system that engages people in identifying appropriate proficiencies asks them to believe critically about their own work. It treats competency not as a hoop to leap through, but as part of expert practice.

That shift can change the tone of the whole procedure. Personnel are most likely to invest effort when the topic passes the common-sense test: yes, this is brand-new; yes, this actually changed; yes, this location carries danger; yes, this has been an issue for us. It is much more difficult to dismiss the procedure as busywork when the rationale is clear.
What the model is attempting to prevent
A typical failure in proficiency programs is overproduction. Organizations build huge yearly packets, then ask every staff member to finish every element whether or not it shows the current truth of the role. That technique typically creates 2 issues at once. Initially, it drains pipes time and attention. Second, it obscures genuine danger due to the fact that essential products get buried among lower-value tasks.

The Donna Wright approach pushes in the opposite direction. It motivates companies to be selective, strategic, and explicit about why a proficiency is being assessed. That does not suggest being casual. It indicates being disciplined enough to reserve official competency work for areas where there is a clear reason.

This difference matters in leadership meetings. I have seen groups invest long stretches arguing about formats when the more crucial question was never settled: why is this on the competency strategy at all? The four-question structure helps leaders address that before they transfer to tools, kinds, or deadlines.

It likewise helps with staff trust. People usually tolerate extensive expectations when they can see the point. They resist when the process feels detached from care or operations. A focused model aspects scientific time and acknowledges a reality every educator discovers eventually: attention is limited. If whatever is urgent, absolutely nothing is memorable.
The location of culture in proficiency assessment
One verified description of the model notes a core concept that leaders create a culture of success that supports favorable staff member habits and the organization's mission. That sentence may sound broad, however it is highly practical.

Competency assessment does not occur in a vacuum. If the regional culture is punitive, personnel may hide uncertainty. If the culture is dismissive, supervisors may hurry through validation to get it done. If the culture is strong, competency conversations become more honest and better. Staff can say, "This part of the rollout is not sticking," or "We have confusion here," without presuming that speaking up will be held versus them.

That cultural piece is one factor the design has stayed appropriate. Proficiency is not just about screening memory or marking off technical tasks. It is also about creating an environment where people can recognize discovering requirements, acknowledge variation, and enhance practice before a problem grows.

There is a subtle however important management discipline here. Supporting a culture of success does not indicate lowering requirements. It implies constructing a system where accountability and support are not dealt with as revers. In efficient competency programs, individuals are expected to demonstrate practice, however they are also provided methods that fit the work and a reasoning that makes sense.
Validation techniques matter as much as subject selection
A sound topic can still be undermined by a poor validation method. One of the strengths associated with competency Donna Wright approaches is the use of multiple validation techniques. Sources explaining the design note that Wright utilizes 11 recognition techniques, and examples pointed out consist of assisted practice, proof of day-to-day work, peer review, case studies, and return demonstrations.

That flexibility is very important because not every competency must be confirmed the very same way. A narrow technical skill might provide itself to a return presentation. A judgment-heavy scenario may be better checked out through a case study. A practice that is already embedded in regular care may be finest confirmed through evidence of day-to-day work instead of forcing a synthetic test setting.

Here, rigid systems frequently get in their own method. When companies default to one approach for each competency, they typically do so for administrative benefit. The outcome can be weak proof of genuine skills. A method needs to fit the thing being examined, not the other way around.

A couple of examples of the type of recognition approaches associated with the model include:
guided practice evidence of everyday work peer review case studies return demonstrations
Notice what these techniques share. They move closer to real practice. Even when they are structured, they are not always separated from the truths of the role. That gives them more face validity with personnel and often produces more meaningful competency assessment results.
The donna wright proficiency worksheet is only as good as the discussion behind it
Many teams searching for a donna wright proficiency worksheet are actually searching for a faster way, a template that will make proficiency planning simpler. Templates can assist arrange thought, but they do not change judgment. The genuine worth in a worksheet is not the document itself. It is the disciplined conversation it prompts.

A helpful worksheet based upon this framework would assist a team sort proposed proficiencies into the 4 categories and validate why every one belongs. It would likely support a discussion such as this: Is this really brand-new, or is it just being stressed once again? Has something actually changed in policy or procedure, or are we responding to isolated confusion? Is the threat high because damage could be severe, or are we labeling it high threat because it feels crucial? Is this bothersome in a recorded, recurring sense, or are we relying on anecdotes?

Those are not administrative details. They are the heart of prioritization.

The very same holds true when reviewing proficiency evaluation outcomes. Leaders often focus initially on conclusion portions due to the fact that those numbers are simple to show. Yet a completion rate states nothing by itself about whether the ideal proficiencies were chosen or whether the validation method produced useful evidence. Much better concerns follow. Did the process discover spaces that matter? Did it verify strong practice in locations of concern? Did it expose the need for more support, clearer communication, or a different validation strategy?

Those questions make the results actionable. Without them, results stay clerical.
What great donna wright proficiency examples generally reveal
When people ask for donna wright proficiency examples, they are often attempting to imagine how the categories play out in real operations. The most instructional examples are not dramatic. They specify and tied to the work.

A new device presented to an unit fits the "what's new" classification because staff must discover the device itself, not simply revisit a basic subject. A modification in treatment fits "what's changing" because previous routine might interfere with the upgraded expectation. A low-frequency but major responsibility fits "what's high danger" due to the fact that repercussions validate purposeful validation. A repeating difficulty with consistency, communication, or practice fits "what's bothersome" since history shows it requires attention.

What makes these examples helpful is not their intricacy. It is the clear match between the competency and the category. Weak examples typically drift into ambiguity. Strong ones answer the quiet concern every clinician asks: why this, why now?

That is where the model has practical discipline. It does not ask groups to develop a grand theory of competency. It inquires to determine the current drivers that justify focused assessment.
Comments on proficiency evaluation that are worthy of to be taken seriously
Over the years, discuss proficiency assessment from frontline staff tend to repeat themselves. Some are skeptical. Some are fair. The best programs listen to them.

One typical remark is that annual proficiency work can feel detached from the realities of practice. The Donna Wright design reacts to that by pressing selection closer to actual unit requires. Another common remark is that excessive time gets invested in low-value workouts. Again, the four-question structure functions as a filter. Personnel likewise frequently note that being tested in a classroom or online module does not always reflect performance in real care environments. The focus on different recognition techniques addresses that concern more straight than one-size-fits-all methods do.

There is also a more nuanced personnel response that leaders should not neglect: individuals want the process to be fair. If proficiency assessment is going to influence confidence, readiness, and in some cases credibility, the method has to fit the skill. A bad match can make capable professionals feel misjudged. A thoughtful match can make the procedure feel strenuous without being arbitrary.

For supervisors and educators, this is where maturity programs. It is easy to protect a procedure because it recognizes. It is harder, and more useful, to ask whether the procedure is producing evidence that anybody trusts.
Using the structure in annual competency planning
The model is related to annual proficiency programs, nurse residency settings, and broader ongoing proficiency evaluation. That range makes sense due to the fact that the structure is versatile without losing its core logic. Whether a group is preparing annual proficiencies or orienting newer clinicians into practice, the very same four questions can focus attention.

In annual preparation, the biggest temptation is build-up. Every year, old subjects linger and brand-new ones get added. The list grows, however the educational value typically does not. A disciplined usage of the structure counters that drift. Leaders and staff can take a look at the approaching cycle and ask which proficiencies truly belong this year. Not which ones recognize, not which ones have constantly been consisted of, however which ones are justified by newness, modification, threat, or showed problems.

In residency programs, the value can be slightly different. The structure can assist distinguish between fundamental learning that belongs in development and competency evaluation that requires recognition due to the fact that it carries genuine practice ramifications. That separation prevents programs from utilizing competency language too broadly and losing precision.
Where organizations can abuse the framework
Even strong designs can be watered down. One danger is dealing with the four categories as labels to validate decisions currently made. If every preferred topic gets called high danger, the filter stops functioning. Another danger is omitting staff input while declaring to utilize a collective design. The framework depends upon partnership in between management and frontline teams. Without that, it ends up being a management workout wearing participatory language.

There is also the risk of misestimating kinds. A perfectly designed worksheet, a refined control panel, and a cool set of competency evaluation results can develop the appearance of rigor. However if the underlying subject choice was weak, the appearance does not matter. The hard work is not formatting. The effort is deciding what really merits proficiency attention and then choosing a validation technique that can credibly assess it.

A final abuse appears when leaders assume the design removes the requirement for judgment. It does not. It supplies a structure for judgment. People still need to translate regional truths, weigh proof, and decide what matters most for a particular role or unit.
Why the model continues to resonate
The resilience of the donna wright competency evaluation design is not mysterious. Healthcare environments change constantly, however the pressure points around competency stay familiar. New tools arrive. Treatments shift. Some aspects of care carry outsized danger. Particular issues keep recurring till someone addresses them directly. A model developed around those truths does not age quickly.

It likewise resonates because it appreciates both functional needs and professional intelligence. It assumes staff can add to recognizing significant competencies. It assumes leaders need to align proficiency work with objective and results, not simply with custom. And it assumes validation needs to be matched attentively to the competency itself.

Those assumptions sound easy, yet they are typically missing out on when proficiency systems end up being overgrown.

At its best, this structure does something many health care procedures stop https://andreedsy861.oakridgedigest.com/posts/how-to-interpret-competency-assessment-results-in-healthcare-settings https://andreedsy861.oakridgedigest.com/posts/how-to-interpret-competency-assessment-results-in-healthcare-settings working to do. It narrows the field without oversimplifying the work. It gives groups a clear way to ask what matters now, why it matters, and how to assess it credibly. For companies attempting to move beyond annual checkboxes, that is not a small improvement. It is the difference between administering competency and really using it.

<!-- ============================================================
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 b. 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 health care consulting and education firm 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/ works alongside health care organizations improve the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its signature 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>