Matt only. Not for anyone else in the meeting.
His four objections, what to say back, and the two sentences that decide how the meeting goes.
He is the last leader to see this. Name that before he notices it himself.
"You are seeing this after the rest of the leadership team, and I want to say why rather than have you wonder. I did not want it reaching you cold in a group. Nothing about psychiatry is decided. I am asking for your read, not your agreement."
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. You will not learn about a decision here after it has been made."
Do not name the hospital. Two different names sit in our notes for the same closure. Say "the hospital that used to be here" and let him supply the name.
The sharpest one, and it is correct. Every psychiatry client needs a named clinical contact and a reassessment every 180 days, 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."
Do not let him raise this first. Naming it yourself is the difference between a plan with a hole in it and a plan that knows where the hole is.
Concede. Do not defend this one. It is the only part of the model that could hurt somebody, and he is the only person who knows whether receiving prescribers exist across five rural counties.
"That is exactly why I need you on it. If that place does not exist, this part does not become policy. I would rather hear it from you today than from a client in November."
No. He is not on the list. Say it early 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 and the commitment, not a longer explanation.
He is the sole prescriber. If he leaves, psychiatry ends, that revenue ends, and medication access ends for the whole panel. He may not have thought about it in those terms.
Do not hand it over and do not pretend it is untrue. 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.
The nurse practitioner is protection for him, not a replacement. It solves sole-prescriber risk, Ottawa and medication-assisted treatment in one hire. Framed wrong it sounds like step one of replacing him.
The reorganisation is an event. People leave 2 September and it is done.
The integration model is a process. Clients get reviewed and assigned over weeks. Nobody can assign a clinical contact to every psychiatry client by 2 September, 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 it.
Say both sentences on the day. It costs nothing and it is the difference between a model that starts and one that stalls.
assumptionWe have no psychiatry client count anywhere. Slide 4 carries "How many?" as a visible blank rather than a guess, because a wrong count in front of the person who knows the real one costs more than an empty box.