How the Donna Wright Proficiency Evaluation Model ™ Supports Yearly Proficiencie

13 November 2026

How the Donna Wright Proficiency Evaluation Model ™ Supports Yearly Proficiencies

Annual proficiencies can become one of the most disliked parts of healthcare education. Staff frequently anticipate a stack of modules, a rushed checklist, and a return demonstration that shows extremely little about day-to-day practice. Leaders, meanwhile, invest considerable time into tracking completion and still question whether the procedure really decreased threat, enhanced judgment, or reinforced care.

That stress describes why the Donna Wright Competency Evaluation Model ™ continues to draw interest in health care settings. The model has been used for more than thirty years, and its staying power is not difficult to comprehend. It reframes proficiency assessment as a strategic, outcomes-driven procedure instead of an annual exercise in paperwork. Instead of assuming every staff member needs the very same evaluation every year, it asks a much better question: what really needs to be examined now, in this function, on this unit, given existing conditions?

That shift matters. In practice, yearly competency programs work best when they concentrate on the small number of things that truly carry effect. A proficiency procedure that tries to cover everything often ends up showing nothing. A process that recognizes what is new, changing, high-risk, or bothersome has a better opportunity of securing clients, supporting personnel, and using educator time wisely.
The genuine issue with traditional annual competencies
Many healthcare companies inherited yearly competency structures that are broad however thin. Everybody finishes the same package. A nurse who has managed main lines for years might sit through the very same review as an amateur clinician. An extremely stable procedure might get as much attention as a newly changed procedure. Conclusion ends up being the step, even when completion is not the same as competence.

The weakness of that method is useful, not theoretical. In busy care environments, education time is limited. Supervisors are balancing staffing concerns. Educators are expected to support orientation, onboarding, policy changes, quality work, and continuous development. When annual proficiencies become an effort to touch every subject, the procedure can lose trustworthiness with personnel. Individuals take part due to the fact that they must, not because the content reflects the risks and realities of their work.

The Donna Wright competency assessment design addresses this by narrowing focus. It does not deal with every subject as similarly urgent. It assists leaders and staff determine which proficiencies deserve attention and which might not require formal reassessment that year. In my experience, that difference is where annual competency programs either gain traction or fall flat. Clinicians can tell when a proficiency day was designed from routine versus developed from real operational need.
A design developed around ownership, empowerment, and accountability
One factor the design resonates in health care is that it does not put the full problem of proficiency on a top-down educational system. It is associated with the ideas of ownership, empowerment, and accountability. Those 3 ideas sound basic, but they can change the tone of a yearly proficiency program.

Ownership suggests staff are not passive receivers of education. They have a function in recognizing what matters in practice and in taking part in the validation process. Empowerment indicates leaders do not presume learning takes place just through lectures or tests. They create conditions where the staff member can demonstrate competence in manner ins which reflect actual work. Responsibility means competency assessment still matters, but it is tied to meaningful efficiency and organizational top priorities instead of to an approximate set of annual tasks.

That framing is specifically helpful in healthcare due to the fact that proficiency is seldom just about remembering facts. It is about recognizing modification, applying policy, acting securely under pressure, and adjusting when conditions shift. A nurse may understand a protocol in theory but struggle with application when the patient is unsteady or when devices is brand-new. A proficiency model that appreciates the complexity of practice is most likely to produce legitimate results.
Why the Donna Wright technique fits yearly proficiency work so well
Annual competency programs require a structure. Without one, they become reactive and inconsistent. The strength of proficiency assessment in healthcare Donna Wright design is that it provides leaders a disciplined method to choose what deserves formal attention each year.

A commonly pointed out variation of the design centers on four questions:
What is new? What is changing? What is high-risk? What is problematic?
These concerns sound modest, however they are powerful filters. They keep yearly proficiencies tied to current practice instead of legacy material. If an unit has actually presented new devices, that belongs in the yearly plan. If a treatment has actually changed, staff need reassessment. If a job brings high risk even when done infrequently, it merits careful validation. If a repeating issue appears in quality reports, occasion evaluations, or workflow concerns, it needs to not be disregarded just because it was covered last year.

This is where the model becomes more than a philosophy. It provides teachers, scientific leaders, and staff a useful decision-making structure. Instead of beginning with a preloaded packet, they start with a scan of the work environment. That allows yearly proficiencies to stay connected to real patient care and functional priorities.

I have actually seen this logic play out in familiar ways. One year, the urgent subject is a brand-new gadget. Another year, the requirement is not new at all, however a longstanding process with repeated mistakes or drift in practice. Conventional annual competency systems tend to treat these situations likewise. The Donna Wright model does not. It distinguishes between regular material and material that carries effect ideal now.
Collaboration is not a side feature, it is central
A major feature of the design is partnership between personnel and management to identify which proficiencies matter for a function or system. That point deserves more attention than it generally gets. In many companies, yearly proficiencies are designed centrally and provided outside. The process may be effective on paper, however it can miss out on unit-level realities.

Frontline clinicians generally know where work has actually become more intricate. They know which brand-new items have triggered uncertainty, which policy modifications have actually been tough to operationalize, and which client care jobs create one of the most anxiety amongst newer personnel. Leaders know more comprehensive organizational concerns, patterns, and dangers. A strong competency process requires both perspectives.

This collaborative piece likewise improves buy-in. Staff are more likely to engage when they can see the reasoning behind the evaluation. If a system determines a troublesome procedure and after that builds a targeted yearly proficiency around it, the work feels grounded. It addresses a real need. That is really various from assigning generic review content that has little noticeable connection to patient care.

There is also a cultural benefit. Sources explaining the model emphasize that leaders create a culture of success that supports favorable worker behavior and the organization's mission. In yearly proficiencies, culture frequently shows up in subtle ways. A punitive culture turns proficiency into direct exposure, an opportunity to capture individuals doing something wrong. A culture of success frames proficiency as assistance, clarity, and shared obligation for safe care. Staff still stay liable, but the procedure is not created to humiliate them or to produce failure.

That distinction changes the quality of the conversation. When staff feel safe adequate to say, "This process has altered and people are not sure," leaders have a chance to respond before uncertainty causes harm.
Annual proficiency topics end up being more defensible
One of the hardest parts of yearly proficiency preparation is topic choice. Why this ability and not that one? Why reassess infusion pump use this year but not wound vac application? Why require official recognition for one role however not another?

The Donna Wright proficiency evaluation model offers companies a defensible method to address those concerns. Subject selection is typically focused on around categories such as brand-new items, policies, or devices, modifications in procedures, high-risk aspects of the job, and troublesome elements of the task. That assists groups move far from "we always do it in this manner" and towards "this is why this subject matters now."

For leaders, that develops a more powerful reasoning when discussing proficiency decisions to personnel, executives, or certifying bodies. It likewise secures against the common temptation to expand the annual list constantly. Once teams begin recognizing whatever that could possibly matter, the process rapidly ends up being uncontrollable. The model motivates prioritization, which is often the missing out on skill in annual proficiency planning.

Prioritization is not the like neglect. It merely suggests the company accepts that not every subject needs the exact same level of annual validation. Some topics might be enhanced in huddles, policy updates, or system education without being designated as annual proficiency products. Others call for a much more official assessment because of their threat, novelty, or problem history.
Validation ought to match the skill, not the habit
Another reason the model supports yearly proficiencies so well is its use of numerous recognition techniques. Sources describing the Donna Wright approach note 11 validation approaches, and examples consist of guided practice, evidence of day-to-day work, peer review, case studies, and return presentations. That versatility is among the most helpful features of the model.

Too numerous annual proficiency programs count on a single method for everything, generally a test or a list. The problem is apparent to anyone who has worked in medical education. Some proficiencies are best confirmed through direct performance. Some are better checked out through judgment-based conversation. Some can be shown through proof in day-to-day work rather than staged performance in a classroom.

A useful yearly program may use methods like these:
Guided practice for a procedure that just recently changed Evidence of day-to-day work for an ability regularly performed in practice Peer evaluation when professional judgment and teamwork are central Case studies for scientific thinking and decision-making Return demonstrations for hands-on jobs where technique matters
This range makes the process more reputable. If the competency has to do with recognizing danger, a multiple-choice quiz may disappoint much. If the competency is about carrying out a technical task safely, a case study alone may be insufficient. Matching the recognition approach to the nature of the proficiency improves the chances that proficiency assessment results in fact mean something.

It likewise aids with performance. Not every team member needs the very same approach for the exact same subject. Someone who demonstrates strong evidence of safe day-to-day practice might not need the exact very same recognition technique as somebody discovering a brand-new process. The design's flexibility allows judgment, which is crucial in healthcare education.
The learner is not an afterthought
A specifying function of the design is that it centers the student or employee in the recognition procedure rather than relying just on top-down testing. That may sound abstract up until you compare it with the usual yearly proficiency experience.

In a top-down system, the organization chooses the topic, the approach, the timeline, and often the acceptable response format. The worker's role is to comply. In a learner-centered system, the employee is part of the proficiency conversation. That does not imply requirements vanish. It implies the process acknowledges that competent specialists can frequently demonstrate their capability in meaningful ways when provided the chance.

This matters since healthcare workers do not all discover or demonstrate proficiency in similar ways. An experienced clinician might reveal proficiency through proof in everyday work and thoughtful discussion of a difficult case. A more recent employee might gain from assisted practice and direct observation. A system that has actually dealt with a troublesome process might need peer evaluation or shared case analysis to uncover where the space truly sits.

When staff have a role in validation, yearly proficiencies can become less performative and more informative. The objective shifts from showing participation to demonstrating ability.
What a Donna Wright proficiency worksheet typically helps groups do
People frequently search for a donna wright proficiency worksheet because they want a tool that translates the design into planning. While companies may format their files in a different way, the requirement behind that search is consistent. Leaders desire a structured way to recognize pertinent competency subjects, link them to existing truths, and pick practical recognition methods.

A beneficial worksheet, in the spirit of the design, would not begin by noting every skill in a department. It would assist a group ask what is brand-new, changing, high-risk, or bothersome. It would then push the group to define the best method of recognition and the personnel population affected. That kind of tool keeps yearly competency work focused and transparent.

The worksheet idea likewise supports consistency across systems without requiring every unit into the same content. A medical-surgical flooring, an emergency situation department, and an ambulatory procedural area do not deal with similar risks. They can still use the exact same choice framework. That is one of the strongest operational benefits of the design. It creates alignment without flattening the distinctions in between functions and care environments.
Donna Wright competency examples are most useful when they stay contextual
Examples help leaders visualize how the model uses, but they are typically misused. The point of donna wright proficiency examples is not to produce a menu that every organization copies. The point is to show how the structure can guide regional decisions.

For example, if a health center introduces brand-new devices, the annual competency might focus on correct use, safety checks, and troubleshooting, confirmed through guided practice or return presentation. If a policy altered in reaction to a repeating issue, the annual competency might combine case studies with evidence of day-to-day work. If a job is irregular however high-risk, a more official hands-on validation might make sense even for skilled staff.

The common thread is not the topic itself. The typical thread is the reasoning used to select and verify it.

This is where experienced educators include genuine worth. They know that not every problem is a competency issue. Often a troublesome procedure shows workflow design, supply inconsistency, staffing pressure, or unclear policy language. A fully grown use of the design prevents stuffing every functional issue into yearly education. It asks whether the issue genuinely requires proficiency evaluation or whether another intervention would do more good.
Interpreting talk about proficiency assessment with care
Comments on proficiency evaluation frequently expose as much about organizational culture as about the design itself. When staff state yearly competencies feel repeated, they may be pointing to bad topic choice. When managers state the procedure is tough to finish, they might be signaling that the recognition approaches are too rigid or too labor-intensive. When teachers report weak engagement, the problem might be that the content has little noticeable connection to present practice.

The Donna Wright method provides teams a method to respond to those remarks productively. Rather of safeguarding the status quo, leaders can ask whether the proficiency plan is really strategic. Are the subjects present? Are personnel associated with recognizing needs? Do validation methods fit the competencies being evaluated? Are leaders cultivating a culture of success, or merely tracking completion?

Those are not cosmetic concerns. They identify whether the annual competency process constructs confidence or types cynicism.

I have actually discovered that the most telling personnel comments are frequently basic: "This in fact helped" or "We do this every year and nothing modifications." The first normally comes from programs that targeted a genuine practice issue. The 2nd normally reflects a procedure built around tradition rather than evidence of need.
Making proficiency evaluation results more meaningful
Competency evaluation results must do more than program who completed a requirement. In a strong annual program, results assistance leaders comprehend where self-confidence is high, where assistance is needed, and whether a picked proficiency subject was the best one in the very first place.

That does not suggest outcomes should be minimized to complicated scoring systems. In a lot of cases, the value lies in the pattern. Did personnel demonstrate safe usage of the new devices? Did an altered treatment still produce confusion throughout assisted practice? Did peer evaluation discover https://griffinexxa022.fotosdefrases.com/donna-wright-proficiency-worksheet-approaches-to-high-risk-competency-topics https://griffinexxa022.fotosdefrases.com/donna-wright-proficiency-worksheet-approaches-to-high-risk-competency-topics variation in how a policy is used? Did evidence of day-to-day work validate that a supposed problem was less about competence and more about workflow obstacles?

Meaningful competency evaluation results also assist organizations fine-tune the next cycle. If a subject no longer falls into the categories of new, changing, high-risk, or problematic, it might not be worthy of the very same level of yearly attention next year. If a problem persists despite repeated competency work, leaders may need to look beyond education.

That is among the most useful lessons of the design. Competency assessment is important, however it is not a cure-all. Used well, it sharpens annual focus. Used badly, it can become a holding place for every single unsolved concern in the system.
Why the design has remained relevant
Healthcare changes constantly, however not every enduring structure stays helpful. The Donna Wright proficiency assessment design has withstood since it addresses issues that have actually not disappeared: minimal time, uneven significance, overreliance on screening, and the obstacle of proving skills in complicated scientific settings.

Its significance is likewise tied to its balance. It is structured without being rigid. It supports responsibility without reducing people to lists. It recognizes leadership duty while still focusing the student. For annual proficiencies, that balance is tough to accomplish and even harder to sustain.

Organizations that adopt this technique for nurse residency programs, ongoing proficiency assessment, or annual proficiency work are often responding to the same need, a desire for competency procedures that reflect genuine practice instead of administrative routine. That is why the model continues to be talked about in nursing and healthcare education circles.

Annual proficiencies will most likely never ever ended up being anyone's preferred calendar event. They do not need to. What they require to do is matter. They need to target the ideal issues, use reliable recognition techniques, involve individuals doing the work, and produce competency evaluation results that leaders can in fact use.

That is where competency donna wright believing brings discipline to the procedure. It helps yearly competency programs focus less on volume and more on worth. In healthcare, where time is brief and the stakes are high, that is not a small improvement. It is the difference in between education that inspects a box and education that supports much safer, more powerful practice.

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

Creative Health Care Management (CHCM) is a health care consulting and education firm founded in 1978 by nurse leader 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 signature Relationship-Based Care® model, Primary Nursing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_nursing, professional governance, and competency assessment.

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

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

Identity & Contact

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

Leadership & People

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

Methodologies & Expertise

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

Publications

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

History

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

Digital Presence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

</script>