The Donna Wright Competency Assessment Design ™ and Collective Recognition

15 November 2026

The Donna Wright Proficiency Assessment Design ™ has stayed appropriate in healthcare for a basic reason: it treats proficiency assessment as a useful leadership function, not an annual paperwork ritual. In settings where patient requires shift quickly, devices changes without much caution, and teams are anticipated to take in new procedures while maintaining safe care, that distinction matters. A competency process that merely checks whether education was assigned hardly ever informs leaders what personnel can in fact do, where risk is building up, or what support the system needs next.

What makes the donna wright competency assessment design stick out is its persistence that competency be tactical and outcomes-driven. That language can sound abstract till you see how it changes day-to-day operations. Rather of asking, "What can we make everyone complete this year?" the design pushes leaders and personnel to ask, "What genuinely requires validation today?" That is a sharper concern, and in my experience it is the one that separates high-value competency programs from puffed up yearly workouts that tire educators and irritate clinicians.

This approach has been used in healthcare for more than thirty years and is widely connected with Donna Wright's work as a nurse and professional development expert. It has actually likewise been embraced in organizations varying from health systems to academic and residency settings. That durability states something essential. Competency frameworks reoccur, but designs that make it through in real clinical environments normally do so since they assist leaders make decisions under pressure.
Why the model changed the conversation
For several years, proficiency evaluation in healthcare tended to drift towards standardization for its own sake. Units typically utilized the very same annual subjects for everybody, even when some content no longer reflected the greatest medical risk. A medical-surgical nurse might duplicate a familiar online module while a recently presented gadget on the unit got less attention than it deserved. The structure felt arranged, yet the priorities were often off.

The Donna Wright design challenged that pattern by reframing what ought to drive competency selection. It stresses partnership in between staff and leadership to recognize what matters for a function, specialty, or system. That collaborative piece is not an ornamental feature. It is the engine of the model.

Frontline personnel see issues before dashboards do. They understand which procedures develop hesitation during a busy shift, which new supplies have actually altered workflow, and which policies are comprehended in theory however inconsistently used in practice. Leadership, on the other hand, sees more comprehensive organizational patterns, regulative commitments, client security concerns, and strategic top priorities. When those viewpoints are united, proficiency preparation becomes more accurate.

That is why proficiency donna wright conversations frequently resonate with knowledgeable nurse leaders. The design appreciates scientific judgment. It does not pretend every proficiency can be lowered to a one-size-fits-all quiz. It asks leaders to think critically about threat, change, and performance.
The four questions that keep the procedure grounded
One of the most commonly pointed out aspects of the design is using 4 questions to determine proficiency requirements. They are uncomplicated, but they are effective since they force prioritization.
What is new? What is changing? What is high-risk? What is problematic?
These 4 questions assist teams cut through sound. If a new product, policy, or tool has actually been introduced, it may deserve concentrated validation. If a procedure has actually changed, even somewhat, personnel may need updated competency support. If a task carries high danger, leaders can not securely presume that familiarity equals efficiency. If a process has actually been troublesome, whether since of duplicated confusion, workflow gaps, or observed inconsistency, then proficiency evaluation can become a targeted intervention instead of a generalized reminder.

I have seen variations of these classifications work particularly well in systems where annual plans had grown too long. As soon as leaders begin applying the four-question filter truthfully, old routines end up being harder to safeguard. Content that has actually been repeated out of custom begins to fall away. Subjects with real operational relevance entered clearer view. That alone can restore trustworthiness to the proficiency process.

There is also a subtle leadership benefit here. The questions provide supervisors and teachers a common language. Rather of discussing proficiency subjects based on preference, they can discuss them based upon whether they are new, changing, high-risk, or problematic. That shift reduces turf fights and brings the discussion back to patient care and group performance.
Collaborative validation is more than shared decision-making
The expression collective recognition often gets translated too directly, as if it just means personnel are requested for input before management completes a plan. In the Donna Wright framework, partnership goes further. The student or staff member is centered in the validation process itself, instead of being dealt with as the passive recipient of a top-down assessment.

That distinction matters. Conventional methods often place all authority with the educator, supervisor, or annual proficiency package. Personnel are informed what to complete, when to finish it, and how it will be scored. The procedure may be effective on paper, but it can miss an obvious truth: grownups discover and show proficiency in various ways, and experienced clinicians typically show proficiency most clearly in practice, not in classroom-style testing.

By focusing the learner, the design recognizes that competency is not almost exposure to info. It has to do with legitimate demonstration. It also acknowledges responsibility. Ownership, empowerment, and accountability are ideas long associated with this technique, and they fit together logically. Personnel are invited into the procedure, but they are not let off the hook. Cooperation is coupled with responsibility.

This is where many companies either unlock the model's worth or flatten it into a slogan. If leaders request personnel input however still rely nearly completely on generic screening, the process stays top-heavy. If leaders enable broad flexibility but stop working to define expectations, the process can become irregular. Great application needs both trust and structure.
What validation can appear like in practice
Another strength of the model is that it is associated with multiple recognition methods instead of one preferred format. That is a practical advantage in healthcare, where skills may be visible in different methods depending upon the skill, role, and setting. Some companies reference 11 recognition methods within Wright's work, and the broader idea is that leaders can select methods that fit the proficiency being assessed.

A few commonly discussed techniques consist of the following:
guided practice evidence of everyday work peer review case studies return demonstrations
This flexibility is one reason the model has actually been appealing to organizations trying to move beyond yearly checklists. A return demonstration may make sense for a hands-on procedure, however it might be a bad suitable for evaluating scientific judgment in an intricate patient situation. A case study can reveal thinking, however it may not adequately show procedural precision. Evidence of daily work can be highly significant, though it needs leaders to define what proof counts and how it will be reviewed fairly.

In other words, the design does not hand leaders a faster way. It provides a better decision framework.

Consider an unit presenting brand-new infusion equipment. A mass online module might interact baseline info, however it will not always verify safe usage at the bedside. Assisted practice or return presentation might be more powerful choices. Now think about a long-standing concern with escalation of care. The problem might not be psychomotor skill at all. It might include acknowledgment, communication, and judgment. Because case, peer review of genuine cases or a structured case study might reveal even more than an easy abilities reasonable station.

These are not little distinctions. When validation techniques match the nature of the proficiency, results end up being more reputable. Staff are more likely to see the process as appropriate, and leaders are most likely to trust the competency assessment results.
The function of leadership, and the culture behind it
One of the most crucial concepts linked to the model is that leaders develop a culture of success that supports both favorable employee habits and the company's objective. That sounds aspirational, but in practice it is really concrete.

A culture of success does not mean decreasing expectations. It means designing competency systems that assist staff prosper in meeting significant expectations. The difference shows up in lots of daily choices. Does a manager usage competency findings to coach and assistance, or mainly to record shortages? Does a teacher build evaluations around real workflow, or around what is simplest to appoint? Are staff motivated to speak truthfully about problematic processes, or do they keep quiet due to the fact that admitting unpredictability feels risky?

Competency programs reflect management values more than lots of leaders recognize. When the process is punitive, staff learn to perform compliance. When the procedure is collective and strategically focused, personnel are most likely to engage with it seriously.

There is likewise an efficiency angle. In strained medical environments, time is among the most contested resources. Leaders who flood personnel with low-yield annual content can inadvertently create cynicism. Personnel begin to see proficiency work as something to survive instead of something that helps them practice securely. A better-targeted design does not eliminate time pressure, but it a minimum of considers that time a more powerful purpose.
Where the design suits annual competency planning
The expression proficiency evaluation in health care donna wright frequently comes up in discussions about annual competencies, and for great factor. Annual competency cycles are where numerous organizations feel the tension in between regulative expectations, staff fatigue, and genuine academic need.

The Donna Wright technique provides a method to reassess the cycle. Rather of treating annual proficiency as a huge stock of whatever a clinician may potentially need, it encourages organizations to focus on what currently benefits attention. New items, altering treatments, high-risk work, and bothersome task functions can all be prioritized. That creates a more disciplined yearly process.

It can also enhance trustworthiness with staff. Clinicians usually recognize when designated proficiencies match what is really happening on the system. They also recognize when topics exist mostly because they have always existed. The second pattern wears down trust fast.

That does not indicate every long-lasting ability disappears from yearly evaluation. Health care still consists of high-risk work that remains high-risk every year. The key is not novelty for its own sake. The secret is importance. A familiar subject may still deserve validation if it continues to involve substantial risk or persistent inconsistency.

This is where judgment matters. Leaders must prevent 2 typical errors. The first is straining the yearly plan with everything crucial. The 2nd is narrowing the strategy so aggressively that apparent danger locations are missed out on. The model supports prioritization, however prioritization still requires clinical thinking and regional knowledge.
The practical value of the worksheet approach
Many groups look for a donna wright proficiency worksheet since they desire a usable tool, not just a viewpoint. That impulse makes sense. Proficiency planning ends up being much easier when leaders have an easy structure for collecting input, sorting topics, and determining validation methods.

Even without recommending one precise design template here, it is clear why a worksheet format appeals to educators and managers. It supplies a place to document what is brand-new, what is changing, what is high-risk, and what is problematic. It also produces a noticeable trail of thinking. That matters when leaders require to explain why particular subjects were selected and others were deferred.

A well-used worksheet can enhance conferences significantly. Instead of vague brainstorming, individuals are pressed to call concrete concerns. "Communication" is too broad to be useful. "Recent confusion about modified blood item confirmation actions" is functional. "Equipment safety" is still too loose. "Staff irregularity in set-up for freshly introduced tracking devices" is far much better. Great worksheets turn impressions into assessable statements.

There is likewise a political advantage inside companies. Proficiency decisions typically draw in analysis, particularly when personnel ask why some long-standing subjects were gotten rid of. A documented procedure helps leaders respond to with confidence. The issue is no longer individual choice. It is alignment with the design's requirements and the unit's real needs.
What excellent Donna Wright proficiency examples tend to share
People typically ask for donna wright proficiency examples, normally because they want to see how the model equates from concept to functional style. While examples differ by setting, strong ones normally share a few characteristics.

First, they specify. They tie the proficiency to a recognizable concern such as a brand-new procedure, an upgraded policy, a high-risk procedure, or a repeating issue. Second, they utilize a recognition method that fits the proficiency, instead of defaulting to whatever is simplest to administer. Third, they include frontline insight. The competency subject is not selected in isolation from the people doing the work.

Imagine a residency program utilizing the design to support shift to practice. Instead of appointing the very same generic proficiency bundle to all students, the team may concentrate on locations where brand-new graduates commonly require structured validation and where client danger is meaningful. In https://lukasukdf980.keystonescope.com/posts/donna-wright-competency-examples-that-show-strategic-top-priority-setting https://lukasukdf980.keystonescope.com/posts/donna-wright-competency-examples-that-show-strategic-top-priority-setting an academic or residency environment, that can develop a more meaningful bridge in between education and practice. Verified context reveals the design has been adopted in those type of programs, that makes sense since beginner clinicians particularly take advantage of targeted, noticeable validation.

In a different setting, a recognized inpatient system may use the design to refresh yearly competencies after introducing revised procedures. Here, a proficiency example may center less on basic understanding and more on adapting existing practice securely to a change. That is a different academic issue and must be approached differently.

The point is not to copy another organization's subjects. The point is to use the very same reasoning procedure. Good examples reveal discernment more than they expose content.
Reading proficiency assessment results with maturity
One of the most common mistakes in proficiency work is dealing with proficiency evaluation results as if they exist outside the environment that produced them. Results matter, however they need interpretation.

If a big part of staff battle with a recognition activity, leaders should not jump right away to the concept that people failed. Sometimes the evaluation uncovered a true ability gap. In some cases it exposed a weak rollout of a brand-new process. In some cases it revealed that the validation method itself was badly selected or badly discussed. In some cases it highlighted workflow barriers that make perfect practice hard to sustain.

That is why discuss competency evaluation are frequently as useful as scores or conclusion rates. The story around the outcome can expose what the numbers miss out on. Personnel feedback might point to unclear policy language, supply variation, combined messages from preceptors, or irregular expectations throughout shifts. Those are not reasons. They are data.

Mature analysis likewise prevents overconfidence. Strong outcomes on a low-fidelity evaluation do not always mean practice is strong. If validation relies too heavily on passive methods, leaders might get reassuring numbers without significant proof of efficiency. On the other hand, a challenging validation procedure may at first produce irregular outcomes while still giving the company far better insight into real readiness.

Competency evaluation is not practically showing compliance. At its best, it is an early caution system and a design tool for much safer practice.
Common execution pitfalls
The model is appealing, however implementation can still go sideways. One recurring issue is shallow cooperation. Leaders might solicit input, then silently go back to preselected topics. Staff notification that quickly. Once they conclude the partnership is performative, engagement drops.

Another risk is puzzling flexibility with looseness. Since the model enables numerous recognition approaches, some teams end up being so casual that consistency suffers. Two team member carrying out the same high-risk function ought to not face significantly different expectations simply due to the fact that various customers have various practices. Local adaptation is useful, but fairness still matters.

A third issue is overcorrection. Organizations that are eager to move away from puffed up annual competencies often slash material so aggressively that they lose sight of enduring threat. Not everything needs to be evaluated by whether it is brand brand-new. Some competencies stay worthwhile of validation specifically due to the fact that the work is dangerous, infrequent, or vulnerable to drift.

There is also the difficulty of leader preparedness. A strategic design requires leaders who can believe tactically. If a manager or educator is uneasy with prioritization, reluctant to involve personnel, or not sure how to choose amongst validation methods, the process might default back to safer however weaker routines. Training leaders to utilize the design thoughtfully is often simply as crucial as presenting the design itself.
Why this method continues to resonate
Health care environments are crowded with structures, but the Donna Wright Proficiency Assessment Design ™ continues to resonate because it attends to a useful tension every company feels. Groups need responsibility, yet they also need relevance. Leaders need structure, yet they also need versatility. Personnel require assistance, yet they also need ownership.

The design does not deal with those stress by pretending they are basic. It fixes them by asking much better concerns and distributing responsibility more intelligently. It offers frontline staff a legitimate role in recognizing proficiency requirements. It offers leaders a structure for prioritizing what matters. It offers companies authorization to utilize more than one form of validation. And it connects competency back to results, culture, and mission.

For companies reviewing their present process, that may be the most helpful lens of all. If yearly proficiencies feel puffed up, if staff total them without much conviction, if leaders are unsure whether results show true readiness, then the problem might not be personnel effort. The problem might be the design of the proficiency system itself.

That is where the donna wright proficiency assessment design remains valuable. It presses proficiency work out of autopilot and back into expert judgment. In health care, that is hardly ever a bad location to start.

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

Creative Health Care Management is a health care consulting organization 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/ helps nursing and clinical teams strengthen the patient experience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience through its proprietary Relationship-Based Care® model, Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.

<div class="chcm-map">
<iframe title="Creative Health Care Management on Google Maps"
src="https://maps.google.com/maps?q=8500%20Normandale%20Lake%20Blvd%20Suite%20350%20Bloomington%20MN%2055437&t=&z=15&ie=UTF8&iwloc=&output=embed"
width="100%" height="300" style="border:0" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer-when-downgrade"></iframe>
</div>

<h3>Key Facts About Creative Health Care Management</h3>

Identity & Contact

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

Leadership & People

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

Methodologies & Expertise

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

Publications

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

History

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

Digital Presence

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

<script type="application/ld+json">

"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@graph": [

"@type": ["Organization", "ProfessionalService"],
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization",
"name": "Creative Health Care Management",
"alternateName": "CHCM",
"url": "https://chcm.com/",
"foundingDate": "1978",
"slogan": "Transforming Healthcare Since 1978",
"description": "Health care consulting and education firm founded in 1978 by Marie Manthey, helping hospitals and health systems improve patient care through Relationship-Based Care, Primary Nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.",
"email": "chcm@chcm.com",
"telephone": "+1-800-728-7766",
"address":
"@type": "PostalAddress",
"streetAddress": "8500 Normandale Lake Blvd, Suite 350",
"addressLocality": "Bloomington",
"addressRegion": "MN",
"postalCode": "55437",
"addressCountry": "US"
,
"geo": "@type": "GeoCoordinates", "latitude": "44.8534371", "longitude": "-93.3565382" ,
"hasMap": "https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"areaServed": "@type": "Country", "name": "United States" ,
"founder": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey" ,
"knowsAbout": [
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care" ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Primary Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7243152"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q121176"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Nursing management", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nursing_management", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2084130"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Patient experience", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_experience", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22907655"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Shared governance", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_governance"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Professional development", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_development", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q828812"] ,
"@type": "Thing", "name": "Health care", "sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q31207"]
],
"hasOfferCatalog":
"@type": "OfferCatalog",
"name": "Health Care Consulting & Education Services",
"itemListElement": [
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Relationship-Based Care Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Primary Nursing Implementation" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Professional Governance Consulting" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Competency Assessment Programs" ,
"@type": "Offer", "itemOffered": "@type": "Service", "name": "Nursing Leadership Development"
]
,
"sameAs": [
"https://x.com/CreativeCHCM",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/272222/",
"https://www.facebook.com/creativehcm/",
"https://www.instagram.com/chcm_consulting/",
"https://www.youtube.com/user/creativehealthcare",
"https://maps.app.goo.gl/oxF5EufxJ7Zc5avb6",
"https://share.google/Du66rxCYYZmi4rzAS"
]
,

"@type": "Person",
"@id": "https://chcm.com/#marie-manthey",
"name": "Marie Manthey",
"sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey", "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21063845"],
"knownFor": "Primary Nursing",
"worksFor": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "See Me as a Person: Stories for Reflection on the Therapeutic Relationship",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Mary Koloroutis" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization" ,
"about": "@type": "Thing", "name": "Relationship-Based Care"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "The Ultimate Guide to Competency Assessment in Health Care",
"bookEdition": "4th Edition",
"author": "@type": "Person", "name": "Donna Wright" ,
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Feel the Pull: Creating a Culture of Nursing Excellence",
"bookEdition": "3rd Edition",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"
,

"@type": "Book",
"name": "Shared Governance that Works",
"publisher": "@id": "https://chcm.com/#organization"

]

</script>