Insert Practice Name Or Logotherapy Termination Summary Clie
Insert Practice Name Or Logotermination Summaryclientdate
Insert Practice Name Or Logotermination Summaryclientdate
[INSERT PRACTICE NAME OR LOGO] Termination Summary Client: Date: Signature(s) of therapist(s): ___________________________________
A. Main reason for termination
- The planned treatment was completed.
- The client refused to receive or participate in services.
- The client was unable to afford continued treatment or did not pay bills on time.
- Client moved.
- There was little or no progress in treatment.
- This is a planned pause in treatment.
- The client needs services not available here, and so was referred to: _____________________________________________________________________________________
- Other: _____________________________________________________________________________________
B. Source of termination decision
- The decision to terminate was:
- Client-initiated
- MCO-affected
- Therapist-initiated
- A mutual decision
- Other: ___________________________________________________________
C. Treatment sessions
- Date of first contact: ______________
- Date of last session: ____________
- Number of sessions:
- Scheduled: _______
- Attended: ______
- Cancelled: ______
- Did not show: ________________
D. Kinds of services rendered
- Individual psychotherapy, for ______ sessions
- Couple/family therapy, for ______ sessions
- Group therapy, for _____ sessions
- Other: ______________________________________________________
E. Treatment goals and outcomes
Presenting Problem(s):
Goal:
Outcome:
ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: WEBSITE:
Paper For Above instruction
Decision analysis is a systematic, quantitative, and visual approach to making complex choices among competing alternatives. It is most useful in scenarios where decisions involve multiple criteria, uncertain outcomes, and significant consequences, such as investment decisions, strategic planning, and resource allocation. The process typically involves defining objectives, identifying possible alternatives, evaluating potential outcomes, and assessing trade-offs to make informed choices.
A generic decision analysis process usually begins with clarifying the decision problem—understanding what needs to be decided and why. Next, decision-makers identify the alternatives available. This is followed by establishing the criteria for evaluating these options, such as costs, benefits, risks, and alignment with strategic goals. Assigning weights or importance levels to the criteria can help prioritize factors. Then, potential outcomes for each alternative are estimated, often with associated probabilities if uncertainty is involved.
The decision maker can communicate the objectives of a decision clearly by explicitly stating the goals and desired outcomes at the outset. This includes defining measurable criteria (e.g., cost savings, revenue increase, risk reduction) and ensuring all stakeholders agree on these objectives. Using visual tools like decision trees, matrices, or charts can help portray the relationships among options, criteria, and outcomes, making the objectives transparent and facilitating consensus.
By systematically assessing each alternative's expected value, decision makers can compare options quantitatively. This approach also allows for sensitivity analysis, which examines how changes in assumptions or input data impact the decision, ensuring robustness. Clear documentation of assumptions—such as probabilities, discount rates, or cost estimates—is crucial for transparency and for justifying the chosen course of action.
Assessment of Cardina’s Project Viability and Profitability
As CEO of Cardinal Company, evaluating the viability of the new product involves analyzing projected cash flows, estimating profitability, and determining whether the investment aligns with the company's strategic goals and financial criteria. The projected cash flows over the years, as provided, demonstrate potential revenue streams from the new product, alongside capital expenditures necessary for production capacity.
Cash flow evaluation begins with understanding inflows and outflows. Revenues constitute the inflows, provided by sales generated from high and moderate demand scenarios. Outflows involve initial capital expenditures and ongoing operational costs. Assessing the impact of each scenario enables better strategic decisions under conditions of uncertainty. The principles of evaluating these cash flows include discounting future cash flows to present value to account for the time value of money, using an appropriate discount rate which typically reflects the company's cost of capital or required rate of return.
Calculating the payback period involves identifying when cumulative cash flows turn positive, indicating how long it takes for the investment to recoup its initial costs. Total return on investment (ROI) measures the overall profitability, computed by dividing net gain by initial investment. The internal rate of return (IRR) estimates the discount rate at which the net present value (NPV) of all cash flows equals zero, providing insight into efficiency of investment relative to cost of capital. Lastly, NPV assesses profitability by subtracting initial investments from the total discounted cash inflows; a positive NPV indicates a potentially profitable project.
Assuming a discount rate of 10%, which reflects the company's cost of capital considering risk, market conditions, and opportunity cost, allows for a realistic assessment of the project. The cash flow estimations suggest that the project can generate substantial returns, but explicit calculations must confirm this conclusion. For example, the payback period should be within the company's acceptable horizon; ROI and IRR should exceed the discount rate for desirability; and NPV must be positive to justify the investment.
In evaluating whether to pursue a new facility at $45 million or upgrade current facilities at $25 million, the company must consider probabilistic revenue scenarios. High demand offers higher revenue but with a lower probability (0.35), while moderate demand is more likely. Expected monetary value (EMV) calculation—with probabilities assigned to each demand level—provides a quantitative foundation for this decision. The approach involves multiplying the expected revenues under each demand scenario by their probabilities, summing these values, and subtracting the respective investment costs.
Based on the EMV data, the expansion/upgrade often exhibits a higher expected value due to lower upfront costs and acceptable revenue projections under moderate demand. However, potential strategic benefits of the new facility, scalability for high demand, and risk considerations may tilt the decision toward a different choice. Cardina’s decision should therefore balance quantitative analysis with qualitative factors such as risk tolerance, technological flexibility, and long-term strategic positioning.