Matt only. Not for anyone else in the meeting.
The four objections he will raise, what to say back, and the two sentences that decide how the meeting goes. This page is not shown to anyone.
He is the last leader to see this. Everyone else worked through it on Friday. That asymmetry is the thing to name first, before he notices it himself.
"You are seeing this after the rest of the leadership team did, and I want to say why rather than have you wonder. I did not want this to reach you in a group where you were reacting cold. Nothing about psychiatry is decided. I am asking for your read, not your agreement."
Do not save it for the end. He carries the abrupt closure of the hospital that used to be in that building, and some of the people who walked out of it are Arukah clients now. Give him the calendar early. It answers the question underneath the one he asks.
"I know what it looks like when a place like this closes with no warning. This is the opposite of that. You will not learn about a decision here after it has been made."
Two different names are in our notes for the same closure. Getting a man's own hospital wrong in the meeting where you are asking for his trust is an avoidable own goal. Say "the hospital that used to be here" and let him supply the name if he wants to.
This is the sharpest objection and it is correct. The model needs a named clinical contact and a reassessment every 180 days for every psychiatry client, in a September with fewer therapists. Say it before he does.
"You are right, and the model already answers it. Integration does not have to mean therapy. Case management and community support count, and those staff are not the ones leaving. The people we are losing are not who this leans on."
Do not let him raise this one first. Naming it yourself is the difference between a plan with a hole in it and a plan that already knows where the hole is.
Concede. Do not defend this one. This is the one part of the model that could hurt someone, and he is the only person in the building who knows whether the receiving providers exist across five rural counties.
"That is exactly why I need you on it. If that place does not exist, this part of the model does not become policy. I would rather find that out from you today than from a client in November."
No. He is not on the list. Say it plainly and early if it comes up, and do not let it hang.
Answered by the opening. If it comes back a second time he is asking about trust rather than process, and the answer is the calendar plus the commitment, not a longer explanation.
If he leaves, psychiatry ends, that revenue ends, and medication access ends for the whole panel. That gives him more leverage than anyone in the building, and he may not have thought about it in those terms.
Do not hand it over and do not pretend it is not true. The move is to make him a designer of the model rather than a recipient of it, which is what slide 6 does by handing him the three open questions.
Bring up the nurse practitioner as protection for him, not as a replacement. It solves sole-prescriber risk, the Ottawa site, and medication-assisted treatment in one hire. Framed wrong it sounds like the first step to replacing him.
The reorganisation is an event. People leave on September 2nd. It is done that day.
The integration model is a process. Clients get reviewed and assigned over weeks. Nobody can assign a clinical contact to every psychiatry client by September 2nd, and if the clinical staff walk out believing that is the expectation, the plan fails in week one for a reason that was never in the plan.
Say both sentences out loud on the day. This costs you nothing and it is the difference between a model that starts and a model that stalls.
assumptionWe have no psychiatry client count anywhere. Slide 4 of his deck carries "How many?" as a visible blank rather than a guessed number, because a wrong count in front of the person who knows the real one costs more than an empty box.