State Mental Health Authorities Research Articles

Amend the Mental Health Care Act 2017: A Survey of Indian psychiatrists (Part 2)

Background: Information about the experience of practicing psychiatrists with the use of the Mental Health Care Act (MHCA), 2017, India, after 5 years of its promulgation has not been available. Aim: The present study was carried out to understand the experience of the practicing psychiatrists in using and complying with the MHCA 2017 and to bring out the problems and suggested reforms, if any, in various provisions of the MHCA 2017. Methods: An online survey by practicing psychiatrists of Indian Psychiatric Society on the various sections and provisions of the MHCA 17 was carried out through structured and open-ended responses. This paper presents the qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses. Results: There were 600 respondents, who gave a total of 1239 (range 116–154) responses to eight open-ended questions about various provisions of the MHCA. Qualitative analysis revealed that most respondents opined for keeping the General Hospital Psychiatry units exempted from inclusion as the mental health establishment, thus treating physical illness at par with the mental illness; a separate stand-alone law for mental illness perpetuates stigma, asked for a larger representation of psychiatrists in the State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards. Most respondents opined that the provisions of capacity assessment, nominated representative, and advance directive are a hinderance in treatment and should be amended; treating psychiatrists and family/caregiver’s consent should suffice for supported admission, just like in other disciplines of medicine; and MHCA 2017 needs major amendments/repeal to make it convenient for patient care. Any unauthorized places/centers where persons with mental illness are kept should come under regulatory control of the state mental health authorities. Conclusion The survey has highlighted several deficiencies and operational difficulties in the current Act that hinder the delivery of mental health care to patients with mental illness in the country and need amendments.

Navigating Uncertainty: Adapting Guidance for Mental Health During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency & the Crucial Role of Bi-directional Feedback.

In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, state and local mental health authorities rapidly developed and disseminated guidance to community mental health agencies. While tailored communication is effective to reach target audiences under usual circumstances, strategies to facilitate the implementation of guidance amidst a rapidly evolving public health emergency are not well understood. This project sought to understand factors informing decision-making about adaptations to guidance, and strategies used to disseminate and facilitate guidance implementation among system-level community partners in OnTrackNY Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) programs for early psychosis. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with New York State Office of Mental Health (NYS OMH) state and local mental health authorities including state leaders (n = 3) and NYS OMH field office directors (n = 4), OnTrackNY program directors (n = 4), and leadership and trainers of an intermediary organization, OnTrack Central (n = 12). Interviews were analyzed using content analysis. Code reports relevant to guidance decision-making and dissemination were reviewed to identify emerging themes. For state and local mental health authorities, decision-making was influenced by changing COVID-19 risk levels, need for alignment between federal and local guidance, and balancing support for workforce capacity and mental health service continuity. For OnTrackNY program directors, decision-making was influenced by internal infrastructure and processes (e.g., program autonomy), availability of resources (e.g., technology), and perspective on managing risk and uncertainty (e.g., COVID-19, regulatory waiver expiration). For OnTrack Central, decision-making focused on balancing CSC model fidelity with OnTrackNY team capacity and resources. Dissemination of guidance consisted of mass and targeted strategies. Information flow was bidirectional such that top-down dissemination of guidance (e.g., from state mental health authorities to providers) was informed and refined with bottom-up feedback (e.g., from providers to state leadership) through surveys and professional forums (e.g., COVID-19 town halls, provider learning collaboratives). Unlike a planned approach to disseminate new policies, public health emergencies create variable landscapes that may warrant a deeper understanding of how guidance may be adapted to fit rapidly evolving community partner needs. Findings may inform efforts to identify processes that contribute to adaptation and dissemination of guidance for mental health during future public health emergencies.

Exploring Psychiatrists' Experiences During Transition from Mental Health Act, 1987 to Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 in Goa, India.

Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (MHCA) came into force on 29 May 2018. Goa State Mental Health Authority (GSMHA) notified the Mental Health Review Board on 8 February 2022, completing the important process of implementation of the act. The transition comes with challenges. A qualitative study was conducted with 18 practicing psychiatrists who had worked under Mental Health Act 1987 as well as MHCA 2017 through purposive sampling across Goa. Data was collected through individual interviews; analysis was done by Braune and Clarke's framework of Thematic Analysis. Eighteen psychiatrists participated: 4 private, 3 secondary and 11 from tertiary levels. The themes extracted were work during MHA 1987, transition, and after the implementation of MHCA 2017. Some participants reported difficulties, felt an increase in workload, and had negative emotions, while a few were neutral, indicating mixed perceptions. This study highlights the administrative struggles and moral dilemmas faced by psychiatrists in handling the new legislation. It's imperative that the implementation of new act should be carried out with sufficient resource allocation and monitoring mechanisms.

Operationalizing antiracism in health systems: Strategies state government administrative organizations use towards racial and ethnic mental health equity

Although a growing body of literature recommends strategies for improving racial equity in organizations and populations, little is known about how racial equity goals are operationalized in actuality, particularly in the context of state health and mental health authorities (SH/MHAs) attempting to promote population wellness while navigating bureaucratic and political constraints. This article seeks to examine the number of states engaging in racial equity work in mental health care, what strategies SH/MHAs use to improve their state's racial equity in mental health care, and how the workforce understands these strategies. A brief survey of 47 states found that all but one state (98%) is enacting racial equity interventions in mental health care. Through qualitative interviews with 58 SH/MHA employees in 31 states, I created a taxonomy of activities within six overarching strategies: 1) running a racial equity group; 2) gathering information and data about racial equity; 3) facilitating training and learning for staff and providers; 4) collaborating with partners and engaging with communities; 5) offering information or services to communities and organizations of color; and 6) promoting workforce diversity. I describe specific tactics within each of the strategies as well as the perceived benefits and challenges of the strategies. I argue that strategies bifurcate into development activities, which are activities creating higher-quality racial equity plans, and equity-advancing activities, which are actions directly impacting racial equity. The results have implications for how government reform efforts can impact mental health equity.

Caveats of mental healthcare act-2017: Recommendation for amendments.

Dear Sir, The rights-based framework in the current Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (MHA-2017) has received a wider acceptance in the minds of policymakers, patients, caregivers, judicial officers, and mental health professionals.[1,2] However, there appears to be a huge gap between acceptance in our minds and implementation at the ground level. Theoretical knowledge of MHA-2017 and the inability to translate it into practice in most of the general hospitals in the country due to systemic issues has created a dilemma in the minds of psychiatry residents. Therefore, it is necessary to have periodic sensitization programs for psychiatry trainees as well as psychiatrists to learn about changing scenarios in mental health legislation in the past five years.[3] The only discipline of Medicine that carries special significance beyond ethical practice involving beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice is psychiatry. This practice and the respect for the rights of a person to bring about optimum mental health outcomes have been legally guided. Forensic psychiatry has started to evolve as a subspecialty of psychiatry.[4] However, are psychiatrists in the country confident in dealing with legal issues evolving in the aftermath of MHA-2017 and imparting this practice to postgraduate trainees? Is clinical practice synchronizing with the legal framework? Are we dealing with the paradox of MHA-2017? Are budding psychiatrists across the country in dilemma with regard to MHA-2017? The response of different states is varied in terms of readiness of infrastructure, the constitution of the State Mental Health Authority (SMHA), the functioning of Mental Health Review Boards (MHRB), and overall dismal application of MHA-2017. Are there hasty translations of Western World rules on the infertile grounds of India? More than four years after passing the act, the current level of functional implementation does not appear to be a healthy indicator for the growth of mental health services in the country. This could provoke lawmakers to bring out the amendments to MHA-2017 to best suit the mental health services and practices of the country. In the absence of functional MHRBs, the practical caveats that may require amendments may include providing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) to children and use of hospital beds for day-care procedures in psychiatry that include but are not limited to the somatic therapies in psychiatry such as administration of electroconvulsive therapy and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). It also includes short-term observation for a few hours in a general hospital following administration of long-acting injectables (LAI) antipsychotics and assessment for the appearance of acute side effects such as post-injection delirium sedation syndrome, and acute dystonia and oculogyric crisis. The other concerns requiring immediate attention for the functioning of MHRB include notifying advance directives, continuing admission under special circumstances, and provision of separate wards for children and women under psychiatry in a general hospital. These amendments could also add the role of MHRBs for adolescents involved in juvenile delinquency, child custody, termination of parental rights, and other related issues.[5] The protection of the rights of a person with mental illness should not be viewed as safeguarding oneself from the practice of psychiatry in the absence of full-fledged implementation of MHA-2017. This could be important for making a provision for the psychiatrist witnessing nonsexual or sexual boundary violation to notify the MHRB in advance, a point not placed in MHA-2017. The spirit of the MHA-2017 also does not clarify the role of the Consultation Liaison Psychiatrist and its effective practice in different departments under general hospital units. Further, the role of the psychiatrist in cases requiring cognizance of other specified acts such as the Prevention of Child Sexual Offense (POCSO) Act, Narcotics and Psychoactive Substances (NDPS) Act, The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, Right To Information (RTI) Act, etc. should also be viewed in parallel with MHA-2017. Authors emphasize the opportunity of teaching programs to highlight the gaps in training and implementation of MHA-2017.[6] The absence of functional implementation of MHA-2017 requires the churning of thoughts of stakeholders to amend a few provisions such as the formation of the transitional local hospital review board till formal MHRBs are functional.[7] This letter encourages clinicians and researchers to assess the compliance status of Indian states with MHA-2017 and to provide feasible solutions through systematic scientific research. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

State Mental Health Authority Level of Involvement in Coordinated Specialty Care Clinics and Client Outcomes.

State mental health authorities (SMHAs) in all U.S. states and territories administer the Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funding for first-episode psychosis. Funds support implementation of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs. The authors investigated the relationship between the level of SMHA involvement with CSC programs and clinical outcomes of clients in these programs. As part of a mixed-methods study of 34 CSC programs, SMHAs from 21 states and one U.S. territory associated with the 34 CSC programs participated in a 1-hour interview (between November 2018 and May 2019) focused on SMHA involvement in administration of MHBG set-aside funds and the SMHA's ongoing relationship with funded CSC programs. SMHA involvement was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest involvement. Client outcome data were collected at the 34 study sites over an 18-month period. Multilevel random-effect modeling was used, controlling for response propensity (propensity score), client demographic variables, and program-level covariates (i.e., fidelity score, staff turnover rates, service area urbanicity, and number of clients enrolled). Clients in CSC programs with SMHAs that were the most involved (level 5) had significantly improved symptoms, social functioning, and role functioning, compared with clients in programs with which SMHAs were least involved (level 1). The findings suggest that increased SMHA involvement in CSC programs is relevant for positive client outcomes. Levels of first-episode psychosis funding doubled in 2021 and 2022, and it is important to identify how SMHAs affect the success of CSC programs and the individuals served.

Misdemeanor Charges Among Individuals With Serious Mental Illnesses: A Statewide Analysis of More Than Two Million Arrests.

Reducing the overrepresentation of individuals with serious mental illnesses in the criminal legal system requires a better understanding of the charges for which they are most commonly arrested. This study aimed to compare violent offenses, penal code classifications, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) codes, and specific charges in arrests among individuals with and individuals without serious mental illnesses. The authors analyzed all arrests (N=2,224,847) in New York State during 2010-2013. Medicaid data and the state mental health authority's records were used to create an indicator of serious mental illness for each arrest. Among arrests involving individuals with the serious mental illness indicator (N=91,363), 7.3% were for violent offenses, compared with 7.6% of arrests involving individuals without the indicator. Among 10 penal code classifications, class B felonies and class A misdemeanors were more likely in arrests among those with the indicator than among those without it. Of the 14 UCR codes examined, seven were more common in arrests with the serious mental illness indicator. Criminal trespass was among the most common charges in arrests involving individuals with the indicator. Most arrests involving people with serious mental illnesses were for misdemeanors, specifically class A misdemeanors, and this class comprised a larger proportion of arrests for those with the indicator than of arrests for those without it. New approaches are needed to address the situations-usually related to socioeconomic disadvantage-that result in individuals with mental illnesses receiving misdemeanor charges and cycling through the criminal legal system.

Growth of Coordinated Specialty Care in the United States With Changes in Federal Funding Policies: 2014-2018.

In 2014, the number of coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs in the United States greatly expanded. The proliferation of CSC programs was likely due in part to the availability of Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) set-aside funds for treatment of first-episode psychosis. This study aimed to explore the characteristics of CSC programs across 44 states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories that received funding through the MHBG set-aside program in 2018. Leadership at 88% (N=215) of the 244 MHBG-funded CSC programs identified through state mental health authorities participated in an online survey. Overall, 69% of the CSC programs were initiated after 2014. More than 90% of programs included services that were consistent with federal guidance. CSC programs showed variability in training received, program size, and enrollment criteria. The results of this study emphasize that clear federal guidance can help shape national CSC implementation efforts, although decisions at the state and local levels can influence how implementation occurs. The strategy of states administering federal funds for CSC may be adapted for the rollout of other behavioral health interventions. Future studies could investigate factors that may shape national dissemination efforts, such as leadership within the state, funding, availability of programs established before the influx of funding, and considerations about sustainability after the funding is no longer available.

Medicolegal Issues with Reference to NDPS and MHCA in Management and Rehabilitation of Persons with Substance Use Disorders.

Medicolegal Issues with Reference to NDPS and MHCA in Management and Rehabilitation of Persons with Substance Use Disorders.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Policy and Practice Implementation.

Background: The impact of the 2019 coronavirus pandemic on the mental health of millions worldwide has been well documented, but its impact on prevention and treatment of mental and behavioral health conditions is less clear. The COVID-19 pandemic also created numerous challenges and opportunities to implement health care policies and programs under conditions that are fundamentally different from what has been considered to be usual care. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on implementation of evidence-based policy and practice by State Mental Health Authorities (SMHA) for prevention and treatment of mental health problems in children and adolescents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 SMHA representatives of 21 randomly selected states stratified by coronavirus positivity rate and rate of unmet services need. Data analysis with SMHA stakeholders used procedures embedded in the Rapid Assessment Procedure—Informed Community Ethnography methodology. Results: The need for services increased during the pandemic due primarily to family stress and separation from peers. States reporting an increase in demand had high coronavirus positivity and high unmet services need. The greatest impacts were reduced out-of-home services and increased use of telehealth. Barriers to telehealth services included limited access to internet and technology, family preference for face-to-face services, lack of privacy, difficulty using with young children and youth in need of substance use treatment, finding a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant platform, training providers and clients, and reimbursement challenges. Policy changes to enable reimbursement, internet access, training, and provider licensing resulted in substantially fewer appointment cancellations or no-shows, greater family engagement, reduction in travel time, increased access for people living in remote locations, and increased provider communication and collaboration. States with high rates of coronavirus positivity and high rates of unmet need were most likely to continue use of telehealth post-pandemic. Despite these challenges, states reported successful implementation of policies designed to facilitate virtual services delivery with likely long-term changes in practice. Conclusions: Policy implementation during the pandemic provided important lessons for planning and preparedness for future public health emergencies. Successful policy implementation requires ongoing collaboration among policy makers and with providers.

Adapting coordinated specialty care in the post-COVID-19 era: study protocol for an integrative mixed-methods study

BackgroundCoordinated Specialty Care (CSC) programs provide evidence-based services for young people with a recent onset of a psychotic disorder. OnTrackNY is a nationally recognized model of CSC treatment in New York state. In 2019, OnTrackNY was awarded a hub within the Early Psychosis Intervention Network (EPINET) to advance its learning health care system (LHS). The OnTrackNY network is comprised of 23 CSC teams across New York state. OnTrack Central, an intermediary organization, provides training and implementation support to OnTrackNY teams. OnTrack Central coordinates a centralized data collection protocol for quality improvement and evaluation of program fidelity and a mechanism to support practice based-research. OnTrackNY sites’ breadth coupled with OnTrack Central oversight provides an opportunity to examine the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis in New York State, and supplementary funding was awarded to the OnTrackNY EPINET hub in 2021 for that purpose.MethodsThis project will examine the implications of modifications to service delivery within the OnTrackNY LHS during and after the COVID-19 crisis. We will use the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modification-Enhanced (FRAME) to classify systematically, code, and analyze modifications to CSC services and ascertain their impact. We will utilize integrative mixed methods. Qualitative interviews with multi-level stakeholders (program participants, families, providers, team leaders, agency leaders, trainers (OnTrack Central), and decision-makers at the state and local levels) will be used to understand the process of making decisions, information about modifications to CSC services, and their impact. Analysis of OnTrackNY program data will facilitate examining trends in team staffing and functioning, and participant service utilization and outcomes. Study findings will be summarized in a CSC Model Adaptation Guide, which will identify modifications as fidelity consistent or not, and their impact on service utilization and care outcomes.DiscussionA CSC Model Adaptation Guide will inform CSC programs, and the state and local mental health authorities to which they are accountable, regarding modifications to CSC services and the impact of these changes on care process, and participant service utilization and outcomes. The guide will also inform the development of tailored technical assistance that CSC programs may need within OnTrackNY, the EPINET network, and CSC programs nationally.Trial registrationNCT04021719, July 16th, 2019.

Preventing Risk and Promoting Young Children’s Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Health in State Mental Health Systems

Early neural development and maternal health have critical long-term effects on children's mental health and outcomes later in life. As child mental disorders continue to rise nationwide, a number of states are considering new ways of investing in the critical early childhood period to prevent later poor outcomes and reduce the burden on the mental health system. Because most state mental health authorities (SMHAs) have no dedicated mental health dollars to devote to this early, crucial period of child development, building coalitions is key to implementing prevention and promotion programming. The authors describe two issues-coalition building and contractual considerations-that should be considered as SMHAs develop these types of policies or plan new prevention and promotion initiatives. Coalition building includes establishing the structural conditions for implementing a prevention or promotion initiative, resolving workforce issues (i.e., who will carry the program out), and engaging communities and families in the effort. Contractual considerations include establishing agreed-upon measures and metrics to monitor outcomes, assigning accountability for those outcomes, and delineating realistic time frames for these investments before expecting improved outcomes. The promise of moving services upstream to support early childhood development, to prevent mental health issues from derailing children's development, and to promote children's well-being are goals that are within reach.

The Vital Role of a Full Continuum of Psychiatric Care Beyond Beds.

The authors make the case for expanding the national discussion of inpatient psychiatric beds to recognize and incorporate other vital components of the continuum of care in order to improve outcomes for individuals with serious mental illness. They review the varied terminology applied to psychiatric beds and describe how the location of these beds has changed from primarily state hospitals to the criminal justice system, emergency departments, inpatient units, and the community. The authors propose 10 recommendations related to beds or to contextual issues regarding them. The recommendations address issues of mental illness terminology, criminal and juvenile justice diversion, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, mental health technology, and the mental health workforce, among others. Each recommendation is based on findings from publicly available data and clinical observation and is intended to reduce the human and economic costs associated with severe mental illness by promoting a robust, interconnected, and evidence-based system of care that goes beyond beds.

Medicaid Waiver Adoption for Youth With Complex Behavioral Health Care Needs: An Analysis of State Decision-Making

Many states have enacted Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Medicaid waivers, which waive or expand Medicaid means tests to increase access to community-based public mental health services for youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED). This study sought to understand key factors in State Mental Health Authorities and Medicaid Agency decision-making in adopting Medicaid waivers for youth with SED. Using purposive sampling to collect data through semi-structured interviews with officials from 37 state mental health systems, interviews focused on fiscal, historical, and political reasons for states’ adoption or rejection of Medicaid waivers to serve youth with SED. Results suggest that decisions around waiver adoption relate to the size and flexibility of state budgets, the sufficiency of existing public HCBS funding and services, political prioritization of children and families, states’ desire to move away from a reliance on residential care, and ideology related to the role of the state in providing for the welfare of children and families. Advocacy efforts promoting state waiver adoption can address apprehensions about budget constraints and providing financial assistance to non-poor families by emphasizing potential cost savings from residential diversion and ethical imperatives to keep children in their homes and communities.

ADMISSION AND CARE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS IN MASSACHUSETTS NURSING HOMES: A PILOT STUDY

Due to the rising prevalence of mental illness in nursing homes (NHs), the US Congress passed the 1987 Pre-Admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) mandate, which aims both to limit inappropriate institutionalization of people with mental illness and to ensure that they are served appropriately when living in NHs. Although the PASRR is a federal mandate, states have considerable flexibility in implementing it, resulting in considerable variation across states. This study explores the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policies on admission and care of individuals with mental illness in NHs, focusing on implementation of PASRR regulations. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with key informants identified through purposive snowball sampling (N=8). Key informants included representatives from NHs, the State Mental Health Authority, state Medicaid office, and independent contractors and an academic expert. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Participants agreed that the PASRR tools efficiently identified and screened people with mental illness -- thus achieving PASRR’s first aim, but that the regulations did not successfully ensure appropriate services. Interviewees also identified a lack of services and options for diversion of people with mental illness into the community. Nursing home informants noticed a disconnect between the various supervising departments and felt instructions were unclear on the administration of the tool. This work builds a case for a national study to understand how PASRR implementation varies across states, resulting in variations in the proportion of people with mental illness admitted and served in NHs.

The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 of India: A challenge and an opportunity.

The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 replaced the Mental Health Act 1987, subsequent to India's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2007. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA) 2017 upholds patient autonomy, dignity, rights and choices during mental healthcare and thus marks a bold step in India's mental health legislation. This new Law marks a major shift in the way mental healthcare is delivered, as it aims to protect and promote the rights of people during the delivery of mental healthcare. Within this Act, a capacitous individual cannot be coerced into receiving treatment for mental illness and inpatient admissions can be 'independent' or 'supported'. 'Supported admission' replaces involuntary admission from the previous legislation. State mental health authorities and mental health review boards will play a major role in the implementation of the new Act. The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 is aimed at bringing about radical transformation to mental healthcare in India.

Network Adequacy, Reimbursement Key to Expanding Access, Panel Agrees

Businesses are well positioned to ask health plans for data to improve accountability—they are paying for benefits but are not getting what they paid for when employees cannot access behavioral health care.

Dealing with statutory bodies under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

India has an enormous burden of mental illness. In spite of the recognition of this population of people living with mental illness, the treatment gap continues to be about 83%. In order to meet this vast unmet need and in the view of aligning the mental health legislation with the international standards and the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 was passed and enforced recently. The provisions in the act have been controversial from its conception. Now after the enforcement of the act, all mental health professionals (MHPs) have a legal binding to follow the provisions in the law. The MHPs are accountable to the statutory bodies – the Central Mental Health Authority, State Mental Health Authority (SMHA), Mental Health Review Board, and finally, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA) and relevant articles/documents obtained pertaining to MHCA and their evaluation were reviewed, the major focus being on the role of statutory/regulatory bodies. Furthermore, an attempt was made to summarize the previous experiences in inspection of mental health establishments by SMHA of Karnataka. We concluded that the MHCA will have both positive and negative aspects. Many of the provisions in the law may appear unclear and unrealistic by many practitioners. However, it becomes precautionary for the MHPs to be well equipped with the MHCA and be acquainted with the requirements of the statutory bodies for ensuring a safe practice. The outcome of the implementation of the act will become evident only with time.

Approach to and practical challenges in certification in Psychiatry.

Psychiatrists and mental health professionals (MHPs) are often requested to provide a certificate in connection with admission, treatment, fitness, competence, administration, legal proceedings, or welfare measures and benefits for persons with mental illness. The role of Psychiatrist and MHPs in providing a certificate is an integral part of clinical practice and more so with the implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA 2017). While issuing a certificate, keeping patient information confidential is a challenging task for a professional as the patient care in psychiatry involves multiple stakeholders (Central and State Mental Health Authorities, Mental Health Review Board, MHPs including psychiatrist, and caregivers). There is limited training at undergraduate or postgraduate level in documentary practices and certification. This article tries to address some of the issues related to certification, professional and legal accountability, and attempts to remove some of the ambiguities associated with the certification process in psychiatry.

How to make rules and regulations for the states in accordance with the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.

Mental Healthcare Act (MHCA) 2017 was gazetted on April 7, 2017. It repeals the Mental Health Act, 1987, and it can be implemented only after the state rules are formed. The central government has already published three sets of rules. This article was written with an objective to review how to make rules and regulations for the state as per MHCA, 2017. All sections of MHCA 2017 and the mental health rules previously made by different states according to the Mental Health Act 1987 were reviewed. Google and PubMed searches were done to review the implementation of their respective mental health acts by different countries and states in the past. Go through Central/State Mental Health Rules, 2018, framed by the central government. Try to adapt it for the state. A meeting on MHCA 2017 should be conducted, including all stakeholders who will give their suggestions about changes to be made. Frame an initial draft and discuss it with the stakeholders and finalize the draft. Discuss the draft in state mental health authority meetings and submit the draft to the government. The Department of Legislation and Parliamentary Affairs can be consulted. The draft should be sent to the central government's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for approval. According to MHCA 2017, state rules can be formed in relation to the aspects mentioned under Sections 121 and 123. The state government should make notification of the rules and then implement them.