IntroductionFor almost ten years a cyclic appropriate care program has been in place in The Netherlands, known as Zinnige Zorg. The program spanned the full International Classification of Diseases (10th Edition). In 2016 a project on mental health was started. A full cycle consisted of four phases: screening (including priority setting), in-depth analysis, implementation and evaluation. During the in-depth analysis phase, the mental health practice as it was provided was compared to the advice in the guidelines. The mental health project is now in the implementation phase. Professionals, mental healthcare institutions, health insurers and patients are now collaborating to reach the goals that have been set at the closure of the analysis phase.MethodsProject documentation was analysed to describe the way stakeholders were involved in priority setting as well as their subsequent involvement in implementation of appropriate care actions.ResultsThe present case report describes two factors that are important in engaging stakeholders:(i) Priority setting started with interviews with different stakeholders. This led to a selection of 9 themes for investigating appropriate care.(ii) For these themes stakeholders formulated 45 issues, together with their consequences for mental health patients, without formulating solutions. If necessary they were reformulated as: [group of patients x] experiences [bottleneck y in mental healthcare], this leads to the patients [negative consequence z]. Next, 9 issues were prioritized and 4 selected, with input from the stakeholders.Finally, two diseases were selected for which the issues were investigated in depth. This focus enables development of specific implementation steps and evaluation of their effects.ConclusionsCurrently, stakeholders are collaborating in a constructive manner in the implementation phase of this cyclic appropriate care program to improve mental health care for patients experiencing psychosis or post-traumatic stress disorder. Important characteristic of the process that might have supported the present collaborative effort in implementation were (i) early involvement of the stakeholders and (ii) an orientation on problems experienced by patients in the priority setting phase.