How to Make Proficiency Evaluation More Tactical With Donna Wright's Design

13 November 2026

Competency assessment can quickly drift into routine. A supervisor collects signatures, educators build annual lists, personnel complete modules, and everyone proceed with really little self-confidence that the process altered practice or decreased danger. The documentation gets done, but the company discovers almost nothing from it.

That is exactly why the Donna Wright Competency Assessment Design continues to matter in healthcare. Rather than dealing with competency as an annual compliance occasion, the model reframes it as a tactical procedure tied to what is really occurring in the work environment. It has actually been utilized in health care for more than thirty years and is widely associated with a more focused, outcomes-driven method to choose what should have attention.

At its finest, the donna wright competency evaluation model helps leaders stop asking, "What should everybody complete this year because we constantly do it?" and start asking, "What does this function, this unit, and this minute need?"
Why the design feels various from standard annual proficiency programs
Many competency systems in healthcare bring the exact same defect. They presume volume equates to rigor. The more subjects covered, the more severe the program appears. In reality, broad annual competency packets often water down attention. Personnel spend time showing low-value abilities they carry out every day, while really important concerns, such as a new procedure, a high-risk job, or a recurring practice space, receive the same treatment as whatever else.

Competency evaluation in health care Donna Wright is known for presses versus that habit. The design is grounded in cooperation in between leadership and staff to figure out which proficiencies matter for a specific role or care setting. That sounds easy, however it changes the center of gravity. Instead of competency topics being picked mainly from the top down, individuals doing the work aid identify where the real threats and changes are.

That shift matters due to the fact that frontline clinicians often see the cracks initially. They know when a brand-new gadget has created confusion on nights. They know which policy revision was revealed but not absorbed. They know which actions in a treatment invite variation, and which "everyone understands this" presumptions are not holding up under pressure. A strategic competency design makes room for that knowledge.

The model is also associated with learner-centered recognition. Instead of depending just on standardized testing or a narrow return-demonstration design, it emphasizes several ways to validate competence. That is important since not every proficiency is finest evaluated the very same way. Some abilities show up and procedural. Others show up in judgment, prioritization, communication, or everyday reliability. A smarter system recognizes the difference.
The tactical core, four concerns that sharpen priorities
One of the most useful functions of the donna wright proficiency assessment model is its usage of 4 concerns to identify proficiency needs. These questions are widely mentioned because they force discipline. They reduce the temptation to produce a bloated proficiency program and redirect attention towards areas with authentic operational relevance.
What is new? What is changing? What is high-risk? What is problematic?
Those four questions are deceptively powerful.

"What is brand-new?" records brand-new products, policies, equipment, workflows, or role expectations. Newness creates vulnerability because personnel may be qualified in the broader domain however not familiar with the particular tool or process now in front of them.

"What is altering?" is various. A task might not be new in absolute terms, but a modified procedure, updated paperwork requirement, or altered escalation path can present mistakes through habit. Modification is where experienced personnel can be just as exposed as more recent team members due to the fact that previous regimens compete with new expectations.

"What is high-risk?" keeps competency assessment tied to client security and functional effect. Not every job is worthy of the exact same level of examination. A procedure with serious downstream harm if done incorrectly must not be assessed with the same casualness as a low-stakes routine.

"What is troublesome?" may be the most revealing classification of all. It asks leaders to take a look at repeated friction, repeating confusion, near misses out on, disparity, or efficiency patterns that signify a gap in between policy and practice. This is where competency ends up being strategic rather than ceremonial. Issues leave traces. A strong system focuses on them.

A useful discipline for leaders is to sit with each question longer than feels comfortable. The first responses tend to be obvious and generic. The more useful answers are frequently specific. "Safe medication practice" is too broad to direct meaningful recognition. "The modified wise pump workflow introduced last quarter is producing variation throughout shift change" is much closer to a workable proficiency target.
Moving from content build-up to risk-based focus
A common failure in annual proficiency style is trying to cover everything. It is usually inspired by good intentions. Leaders wish to be thorough. Educators do not wish to miss out on anything. Compliance expectations loom in the background. Yet the result is frequently a long menu of subjects with weak strategic value.

The Wright design uses an escape of that trap due to the fact that it allows prioritization based upon importance, danger, and modification. That does not indicate regular capabilities no longer matter. It implies not every important ability needs the very same official reassessment every cycle. Strategic competency work compares what staff regularly demonstrate in daily practice and what needs focused recognition due to the fact that conditions have altered or risk is elevated.

This has a practical impact on personnel engagement. When clinicians notice that a competency program reflects the real work of the unit, resistance usually softens. People may still be busy, however they are less likely to see the process as performative. That matters because cynicism is one of the covert costs of bad competency design. As soon as staff decide the workout is mainly for signatures, the educational worth drops sharply.

For leaders, the more difficult discipline is stating no. If every issue ends up being a proficiency, then absolutely nothing genuinely sticks out. Strategic assessment depends upon narrowing the field. The four-question framework provides management groups language for those choices.
Why staff ownership is not a soft idea
Some leaders hear "learner-centered" or "ownership" and presume the model is less extensive. In practice, the reverse is typically real. When staff are active individuals in determining needs and validating proficiency, the conversation ends up being more honest. It is much easier to surface areas of unpredictability when the procedure is not framed just as pass or fail.

The design is described as centering the learner or employee in the recognition procedure. That does not remove responsibility. It alters how accountability is constructed. Personnel are not treated as passive receivers of assigned content. They are expected to engage with their own practice, show ability, and participate in a culture where proficiency is connected to the mission of the organization and to positive employee behavior.

That culture piece is easy to ignore. A competency system never operates in a vacuum. If the surrounding culture benefits speed over reflection, personnel might hurry through recognition and conceal unpredictability. If the culture welcomes interest and practical problem-solving, the exact same evaluation methods can produce far better insight. The Wright model is closely related to the concept that leaders develop a culture of success. That phrase matters since no proficiency framework carries out well inside a punitive or simply transactional environment.

In strong applications, leaders set the tone by treating competency findings as info instead of shame. If a team determines a troublesome process, the reaction should not be, "Why did you fail this?" It should be, "What does this tell us about support, workflow, practice variation, or system style?" That is how competency assessment results ended up being useful.
The value of multiple validation methods
Another factor the model is considered more tactical is its association with several validation approaches. Sources describing competency Donna Wright highlight note that the model utilizes a range of ways to confirm proficiency, and one source refers to 11 validation methods. The exact point is not to remember a number. The deeper point is that skills must not be lowered to a single testing format.

That matters since healthcare work consists of different sort of understanding. Technical execution is one kind. Medical thinking is another. Interaction under pressure is another. Daily consistency with policy is another. A one-size-fits-all approach will miss out on fundamental parts of practice.

Examples of techniques associated with the design consist of the following:
guided practice evidence of everyday work peer review case studies return demonstrations
Each method exposes something different. A return demonstration might work when a psychomotor task should be carried out in a particular way. A case research study might uncover whether a clinician recognizes degeneration or applies a policy under practical conditions. Proof of everyday work can be particularly important for proficiencies that are constantly revealed in practice rather than carried out on command during an annual occasion. Peer evaluation can surface dimensions of dependability and teamwork that are hard to catch in composed tests.

The strategic concern is not, "Which approach is best overall?" It is, "Which method best fits this competency?" That is where many companies improve once they embrace a Wright-informed approach. They stop defaulting to the very same recognition strategy for every topic.
What a Donna Wright proficiency worksheet is truly trying to do
People frequently search for a donna wright competency worksheet as if the worksheet itself is the design. It is not. A worksheet can be beneficial, but only if it supports the underlying thinking. The real worth depends on the choice process behind it.

A useful worksheet shaped by this model would help a group recognize competencies through the 4 strategic lenses, clarify why each product matters, and match the item to a suitable validation approach. It may also distinguish between competencies that truly need formal validation and those that are already evident in regular practice.

That difference is more crucial than most companies recognize. A worksheet needs to not end up being another type that merely transfers old practices into brand-new columns. If the very same long list of generic yearly topics makes it through untouched, then the organization has actually altered documentation, not strategy.

The strongest worksheet discussions are typically unit-specific. A perioperative group, an emergency situation department, a residency program, and an ambulatory setting might all apply the same Wright concepts while getting to very different competency top priorities. That is an indication the procedure is working. Strategic assessment ought to show the truths of the setting, not erase them.
Donna Wright proficiency examples, what strategic assessment can look like
Because the design is focused on categories instead of canned material, the most useful donna wright competency examples are framed by the 4 questions.

If an unit introduces brand-new devices, that clearly falls under "what is brand-new." The proficiency requirement is not "review all devices security," which is too broad to be actionable. It is validation connected to the new devices itself and to the workflows where abuse or doubt is most likely.

If a policy changes around a familiar medical process, the competency target might center on the modified steps, decision points, or documents expectations. Because case, the personnel are not finding out the topic from scratch. They are unlearning an old pattern and replacing it with a new one. That generally requires various teaching and recognition than orientation-level content.

A high-risk example might include any element of a job where an error carries substantial consequences. The design does not determine the subject, however it does insist on seriousness in selecting it. High-risk proficiencies are worthy of methods that in fact evaluate performance, not shallow completion.

A troublesome example is frequently the most operationally beneficial. Picture a system where the same problem surfaces in review after review, not due to the fact that staff do not care, however due to the fact that there is variation in how the procedure is translated. That is precisely the sort of pattern that must set off concentrated competency work. It moves the discussion far from blanket retraining and towards targeted recognition where the problem in fact lives.

These examples show why the design scales well across programs. It has actually been embraced in settings such as nurse residency and annual competency programs since the structure is versatile without becoming vague. It gives teams a disciplined way to decide what matters now.
Reading discuss competency assessment without getting distracted
Organizations typically gather comments on competency evaluation from staff, leaders, preceptors, and educators. Those comments can be valuable, however only if translated carefully. Free-text feedback tends to swing in between 2 extremes. One group will say the process is too lengthy. Another will state it is too light to be meaningful. Both may be right, depending upon how the program is designed.

The tactical relocation is to arrange comments into patterns rather than respond to each declaration in isolation. If staff repeatedly state a competency does not match the truth of their work, that may indicate poor prioritization. If leaders report that completed evaluations do not give them confidence in practice, that may signal weak validation methods. If teachers see repeating confusion in one subject area, that might indicate a problematic competency that deserves more accurate attention.

Not every unfavorable comment means the model is failing. Sometimes significant proficiency work feels more requiring due to the fact that it asks people to engage with practice rather than click through content. At the same time, companies https://troycktg599.cavandoragh.org/why-the-donna-wright-competency-evaluation-model-is-outcomes-driven https://troycktg599.cavandoragh.org/why-the-donna-wright-competency-evaluation-model-is-outcomes-driven ought to not dismiss irritation as resistance to change. Personnel are usually precise judges of whether a competency process respects their time and shows genuine risks.

The most handy remarks are concrete. "This did not fit my function." "The validation technique did not match the skill." "We spent excessive time on what we currently do daily." "The brand-new workflow is where people are in fact having a hard time." Those observations can reinforce the next cycle if leaders treat them as data.
Making competency evaluation results useful
Many organizations collect proficiency evaluation outcomes and after that battle to equate them into action. Ratings are tape-recorded, completions are tracked, and forms are archived, but little modifications. A strategic design needs to produce much better returns than that.

Useful competency assessment results do at least three things. Initially, they show whether staff can validate the competencies that were selected. Second, they reveal whether the organization chose the best competencies in the first location. Third, they create feedback for education, leadership, and functional improvement.

That 3rd function is typically neglected. If a competency repeatedly produces irregular results, the answer is not always more education. It might indicate confusing equipment, weak rollout of a policy change, irregular coaching, or a space in between written expectations and real workflow. Strategic assessment can light up those issues if leaders are prepared to read outcomes broadly.

A narrow reading asks only, "Who passed?" A tactical reading asks, "What is this informing us about risk, assistance, and system reliability?" That is where the Wright method can become more than a proficiency structure. It ends up being a management tool.

This is also where benchmarking versus previous cycles can be tempting however deceptive. If the topics alter each year based upon what is brand-new, changing, high-risk, or bothersome, then results are not constantly suggested to be compared in a simplistic method. The point is not to develop a long-term scoreboard. The point is to keep proficiency work aligned with present reality.
Where organizations often get stuck
The hardest part of adopting this model is usually not comprehending the concepts. The principles are uncomplicated. The more difficult part is giving up old habits.

One practice is relating fairness with sameness. Leaders may feel much safer appointing the precise very same proficiency package to everybody in a role, even when the threat profile differs by system or context. Yet tactical assessment typically requires more customized decisions.

Another routine is overreliance on yearly cycles. If competency is evaluated only when a year, organizations can miss out on the minutes when it matters most, such as throughout execution of a new procedure or in response to a repeating problem. The Wright structure naturally encourages more prompt thinking since "brand-new," "altering," and "troublesome" are moving targets.

A 3rd routine is puzzling documents with confidence. A finished file does not mean skills has actually been meaningfully validated. The more mature question is whether the picked technique offered the organization a believable photo of performance.

There can also be stress and anxiety about subjectivity when several validation techniques are used. That issue is reasonable. Standardized testing feels cleaner on paper. But health care performance is not constantly finest caught by one standardized system. The response is not to flatten all assessment into one approach. It is to construct clear expectations around whichever approach fits the competency.
What strategic usage of the model appears like over time
The companies that acquire the most from the donna wright proficiency assessment design tend to treat it as a continuous choice framework rather than a one-time redesign. They review the four questions regularly. They include personnel in identifying where the work is moving. They select validation methods on function. They take note of what competency evaluation results reveal about both people and systems.

Over time, that produces a healthier pattern. Proficiency conversations end up being more reliable since they are linked to current practice. Staff are more likely to see the process as appropriate. Leaders have better premises for focusing resources. Education efforts end up being narrower, more prompt, and typically more reliable due to the fact that they address actual need instead of acquired tradition.

There is also a subtle cultural impact. When teams repeatedly ask what is brand-new, what is altering, what is high-risk, and what is problematic, they build a shared practice of scanning the environment. Competency stops being a static record and becomes part of functional awareness.

That may be the most strategic contribution of all. The design does not merely alter how companies assess proficiency. It alters what they pay attention to. And in healthcare, attention is a limited resource. Where it is directed will shape both security and performance.

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

Creative Health Care Management (CHCM) is a health care consulting and education firm founded in 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Headquartered in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ helps hospitals, health systems, and care teams transform 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>