Donna Wright Competency Examples for High-Risk Locations of Practice

14 November 2026

When leaders speak about yearly proficiency work, the conversation typically wanders toward checklists, online modules, and a scramble to show completion before a deadline. That is precisely where the Donna Wright Competency Assessment Model differs. The design has actually been used in healthcare for more than thirty years and is extensively understood for moving proficiency work far from rote activity and towards a more tactical, outcomes-driven process. It likewise places staff, not just leadership, at the center of competency validation.

That distinction matters most in high-risk areas of practice. In those spaces, a weak proficiency process creates incorrect reassurance. A signed kind can suggest readiness even when staff have actually not shown judgment, consistency, or safe efficiency in genuine scenarios. The donna wright competency assessment design presses leaders to ask much better concerns first, then choose recognition techniques that match the actual risk.
The practical concept behind the model
At its core, competency assessment in health care donna wright is not built on the presumption that every topic is worthy of the same quantity of time. The design starts by narrowing the field. Rather of asking, "What should everyone finish this year?" it asks where proficiency attention is really needed. A commonly mentioned variation of the model uses 4 guiding questions:
What is new? What is changing? What is high-risk? What is problematic?
Those questions sound simple, but they tidy up an unexpected amount of waste. They keep a system from investing precious education time on low-value repeating while overlooking a process that can seriously hurt patients if it is done inadequately. They also support collaboration between staff and leaders, which is among the defining features of proficiency donna wright. The people doing the work help recognize what matters.

In practice, that indicates a supervisor, teacher, preceptor, and staff nurses may sit together and call the aspects of the function that genuinely should have official attention this year. Some items might associate with a new product, brand-new policy, or new equipment. Others might be tied to treatment modifications. A third set might involve parts of the job that are merely high-risk by nature. A fourth might include issues the team has actually experienced, whether those are repeating mistakes, undependable adherence, or confusion about expectations.
What "high-risk" actually indicates in competency planning
High-risk does not always suggest unusual or significant. In numerous settings, the riskiest work is the work done every day, under time pressure, with many handoffs, competing top priorities, and little space for uncertainty. A job may be high-risk because a mistake has major repercussions, because the margin for recovery is little, or due to the fact that staff require to combine technical skill with quick judgment.

That is why the Donna Wright approach works well here. It does not require every unit into the very same yearly bundle. A perioperative group, an emergency department, a behavioral health system, and an ambulatory infusion clinic might all specify high-risk in a different way. The design enables that variation. It asks the group to call the risk, describe why it matters, and pick a recognition approach that provides meaningful evidence of competence.

The learner-centered aspect is also crucial. In lots of companies, competency has actually historically been something done to workers. The Donna Wright model is better described as something made with them. Staff can help identify where the threat lives in everyday work and which recognition methods make sense. That produces stronger ownership and normally better engagement.
Why high-risk examples require to be specific without becoming rigid
One mistake I have actually seen in proficiency programs is the urge to make every declaration broad enough to fit every person and every system. Broad declarations are simple to copy into kinds, but they are hard to verify truthfully. "Shows safe patient care" sounds great on paper, yet it tells no one what requirements to be observed, gone over, or evidenced.

A much better high-risk proficiency example names the work more clearly. It does not need to become overly technical or packed with policy language, but it needs to make the danger noticeable. If the problem is brand-new equipment, state that. If the issue is a changed treatment, say that. If the issue is a troublesome step in a recurring process, say that. Clarity helps staff know what counts as preparation, and it helps managers prevent unclear sign-offs that mean little.

This is where a donna wright proficiency worksheet can be useful. Whether the worksheet is official or locally adapted, the worth depends on how it frames believing. It prompts leaders and personnel to recognize the category, specify the proficiency, and pick a suitable validation method rather than defaulting to the very same yearly workout for everything.
Examples of high-risk proficiency subjects utilizing the Donna Wright framework
The examples below are deliberately broad. They are created to show how the design can be used without pretending that every organization has the same workflow, client population, equipment, or policy set.

|High-risk focus area|Why it increases to the level of competency attention|Example of a competency declaration|Possible recognition approaches within the design|Helpful discuss proficiency evaluation|Significant proficiency evaluation results||-- |-- |-- |-- |-- |--|| Newly introduced devices used in client care|Brand-new devices modifications efficiency expectations and may produce threat till staff are comfortable with setup, operation, troubleshooting, and escalation|Employee safely uses recently carried out equipment according to current system expectations and determines when to look for assistance|Return presentation, guided practice, proof from everyday work, peer evaluation|"Shows right setup without prompting and verbalizes action to typical issues"|All set for independent use, or needs concentrated follow-up before independent usage|| Modified procedure impacting a common workflow|An altered procedure can produce mistakes when old habits continue|Team member carries out the revised treatment regularly and describes crucial modifications from the previous process|Case study, observation in practice, return demonstration|"Understands the revised series but missed out on one action throughout preliminary observation, corrected after feedback"|Proficient with support plan, or repeat validation required|| High-risk aspect of the task identified by the team|Some parts of the function bring a greater repercussion if done incorrectly, even when they are familiar|Employee demonstrates safe practice and sound judgment in the identified high-risk part of the role|Peer evaluation, evidence of everyday work, assisted practice|"Appropriately recognizes escalation point and follows anticipated process"|Demonstrated competency in regular practice|| Troublesome area with recurring inconsistency|Repetitive confusion or variation is an indication that education and recognition should be targeted here|Employee uses the anticipated procedure in the troublesome area and can explain the rationale for the required steps|Case research study, direct observation, peer conversation|"Can specify policy expectations however needs greater consistency under time pressure"|Partial achievement with training plan|| System procedure impacted by brand-new policy|Policy changes alter what counts as compliant performance|Staff member aligns practice with the current policy and identifies documentation or communication expectations tied to that policy|Proof of everyday work, case research study, conversation with leader|"Practice shows new policy, paperwork complete, no triggering needed"|Competent and lined up with existing policy|

These examples are useful due to the fact that they are anchored in classifications the model acknowledges: brand-new, altering, high-risk, and troublesome. They also prevent a common trap, which is dealing with proficiency as a one-size-fits-all annual assignment. A recently presented gadget does not need the very same validation method as a problematic handoff procedure. A modified treatment may be best tested through direct observation, while a policy-driven workflow might be best supported by evidence from actual daily work plus a concentrated discussion.
Matching the recognition technique to the risk
One of the strengths of the Donna Wright model is its use of several recognition techniques. Descriptions of the design frequently keep in mind a broad menu of alternatives, consisting of directed practice, evidence of daily work, peer review, case research studies, and return demonstrations. That versatility is not a little information. It is what makes the model convenient in real scientific environments.

If a high-risk competency involves real psychomotor ability with new devices, a return demonstration might make best sense. If the threat lies in acknowledging a problem, focusing on action, and escalating correctly, a case study or guided conversation may expose more than a mechanical ability check. If the issue is continual compliance in regular practice, evidence of daily work might be more powerful than a one-time class event.

Here is where skilled judgment matters. I have actually seen leaders lean too heavily on return presentations simply since they feel tangible. A return presentation can be valuable, but it can likewise produce a false impression of preparedness if the true threat in practice is not the physical task itself. In many high-risk circumstances, the more difficult part is choosing when the scenario no longer fits the predicted pattern and outside aid is needed. That kind of judgment might appear better through guided practice, peer evaluation, or case-based dialogue.
What a strong donna wright competency worksheet really captures
A helpful worksheet is not simply a location to record conclusion. It must tell the story of why the competency was chosen and how it will be validated. When groups are thoughtful, the worksheet ends up being a preparation tool instead of a filing requirement.

A strong worksheet typically shows five elements:
The competency subject is connected clearly to something brand-new, altering, high-risk, or problematic. The language describes the work specifically enough that personnel understand what will be validated. The selected recognition method fits the nature of the competency. The discuss proficiency evaluation capture observed strengths, gaps, or conditions for follow-up. The competency assessment results identify true readiness from partial progress.
Those last 2 elements deserve more attention than they often receive. Generic remarks such as "finished successfully" or "fulfilled expectations" rarely assistance anyone. They do not guide coaching, and they do disappoint whether the recognition in fact resolved the risk. Much better remarks are concise but concrete. They note what the team member succeeded, where assistance was required, and whether performance held up under realistic conditions.
Writing comments on proficiency evaluation that deserve keeping
Many competency records are filled with comments that include no value. "Great task." "Completed module." "Observed as soon as." These declarations may record activity, but they do not show significant assessment. In high-risk practice, remarks ought to interact what was validated and what level of self-reliance is appropriate.

Useful discuss proficiency evaluation often include observable habits, consistency, and judgment. A comment might note that the employee carried out the revised series correctly, identified a variance in the situation, and understood when to intensify. It might also specify that the employee required triggering in one area and will repeat validation after additional guided practice. That is far more helpful than a simple pass notation.

The same concept applies to competency assessment results. Outcomes should not flatten everything into a yes-or-no status when the real photo is more nuanced. For high-risk work, there is a meaningful distinction between "independent now," "independent with support," and "not yet ready for independent efficiency." If the system just tapes conclusion, leaders lose an opportunity to reinforce practice and assistance personnel appropriately.
The function of culture in whether the design works
The model is frequently connected with the idea that leaders develop a culture of success, one that supports favorable worker habits and the company's mission. That is not soft language. It has direct consequences for high-risk competency work.

If personnel believe competency review is punitive, they will attempt to look finished instead of reveal uncertainty. If they believe the process is a collective way to identify what matters and strengthen safe performance, they are more likely to engage honestly. That sincerity is especially important in high-risk locations, where overconfidence is dangerous and silence conceals weak points.

Culture shows up in small minutes. It appears when an employee states, "I can do the standard setup, but I want another assisted practice on troubleshooting." It appears when a peer customer gives accurate feedback instead of protecting feelings with unclear appreciation. It appears when a supervisor treats a partial result as details for support, not as an embarrassment.

That learner-centered posture is one of the reasons companies have adopted the model in yearly proficiency programs, nurse residency work, and other continuous professional advancement settings. It appreciates that competent practice is demonstrated in more than one way.
Common errors when using the design to high-risk practice
The Donna Wright framework is simple, but the application can still go sideways. The most typical issue is overloading the system. Groups recognize too many proficiencies, typically because whatever feels important. When the list becomes uncontrollable, recognition ends up being shallow. Personnel rush. Leaders sign off quickly. The very locations that required scrutiny get the least significant attention.

Another common issue is selecting a validation approach because it is practical rather than since it fits the risk. A case study might work beautifully for one competency and improperly for another. Evidence of everyday work might be strong in one unit and difficult to catch in another. The point is not to utilize the same technique each time. The point is to choose deliberately.

A 3rd issue is stopping working to review troublesome areas. If something was identified as troublesome this year, next year's preparation must not ignore whether the issue improved. Otherwise, "bothersome" ends up being just another label on in 2015's documentation. Proficiency assessment results should https://lukashdsr672.sagecurrent.com/posts/talk-about-proficiency-assessment-in-learner-centered-healthcare-programs https://lukashdsr672.sagecurrent.com/posts/talk-about-proficiency-assessment-in-learner-centered-healthcare-programs feed future decisions.
How to think of results without reducing them to paperwork
Many leaders desire a tidy spreadsheet at the end of competency season. That is understandable. Tracking matters. But the results that actually matter are functional, not clerical. Did the team focus on the ideal high-risk problems? Did staff demonstrate skills through techniques that made sense? Did comments catch what leaders require to know for follow-up? Did any locations remain unstable or confusing?

When those concerns drive evaluation, competency assessment ends up being strategically useful. The process begins to influence orientation, peer support, educator time, and system top priorities. It can also reduce lost effort. If a competency is well developed in day-to-day work and proof supports dependable efficiency, it might not require the exact same extensive recognition every cycle. Time can then be redirected to emerging risk.

That tactical focus is among the clearest strengths of the donna wright proficiency evaluation model. It is not anti-accountability. If anything, it requests for more accountability, since it needs leaders and personnel to validate why a proficiency was chosen and how proficiency will be validated in a reputable way.
Turning broad ideas into unit-ready examples
A practical way to utilize the design is to move from category to statement to evidence. Start with the factor the item matters. Is it brand-new, changing, high-risk, or bothersome? Then compose a proficiency statement that names the work plainly. Then decide what proof would encourage a reasonable leader that the employee can carry out securely and consistently.

That sequence sounds fundamental, but it changes the quality of the end product. Compare these two methods. The weak version says staff will complete yearly proficiency on new equipment. The more powerful variation says personnel will show safe use of the newly presented devices utilizing directed practice and return presentation, with competency assessment results showing readiness for independent use or need for additional practice. The second variation is more accurate, more truthful, and much more useful.

This is likewise where partnership assists. Personnel typically understand which part of a process is most error-prone, where people get confused after a policy modification, or which "easy" task ends up being challenging under pressure. Leaders and educators bring a various lens, including organizational top priorities, regulatory expectations, and patterns seen across teams. The Donna Wright approach benefits from both perspectives.
What these examples should assist you do next
If you are constructing or revising a competency program, the very best use of these donna wright competency examples is not to copy the wording blindly. It is to utilize the underlying reasoning. Recognize the real danger. Narrow the focus. Match the recognition method to the proficiency. Record talk about proficiency evaluation that explain actual efficiency. Tape-record competency evaluation leads to a way that supports choices, not simply documentation.

That is where the model becomes more than a type. It becomes a disciplined way to choose what deserves attention in practice, especially where the stakes are greatest. In high-risk areas, that shift is not academic. It is the difference between showing that a job was appointed and showing that a specialist can perform it safely, consistently, and with sound judgment.

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

Creative Health Care Management is a health care consulting organization serving hospitals since 1978 by nursing pioneer Marie Manthey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Manthey. Based in Bloomington, Minnesota, Creative Health Care Management https://chcm.com/ partners with health care organizations 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>