The Bruges Model

Isebaert expanded de Shazer's classical three-level typology to four levels: Uncommitted, Searching, Consultative, Expert. The level determines the type of therapeutic relationship and the choice of interventions. The key principle — the therapist adapts every intervention to the current level, without forcing the transition. The level is dynamic and can change within a single session.

• 1. Assess the current level through the nature of the request and the client's behavior at the start of the session
• 2. At the "Uncommitted" level — look for strengths, give compliments, offer reflection on consequences
• 3. At the "Searching" level — ask the Miracle Question, scaling, look for exceptions and pre-session changes
• 4. At the "Consultative" level — co-formulate a working goal, look for resources
• 5. At the "Expert" level — confirm the autonomy, plan the closing of therapy

When to use:

• At the start of every session and when the relationship dynamics shift
• Especially important with mandated clients and in the first session with an unclear request
• When you sense that the client is "resisting" or not moving
• On relapse or loss of motivation in the course of therapy
• When the chosen interventions are not working — diagnosis through this frame

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not confuse the level of engagement with a diagnosis or with character — it is a dynamic state, not a trait
• ⚠️ Avoid imposing a higher level — that creates resistance, not motivation
• ⚠️ The level can change within a session — track it and adapt flexibly

Isebaert, 2016; Isebaert, 2007; Journal of Solution Focused Practices, 2022–2023

The search for periods when problem use was absent or less pronounced, and a detailed inquiry into what the client did differently in those moments. In the Bruges adaptation, special emphasis is placed on intentional exceptions — those in which the client's role was active, not accidental. Attributing the exception to the client's actions strengthens self-efficacy and creates the basis for a plan. After a relapse — look for exceptions inside the relapse period itself.

• 1. Ask about periods without the problem or with less of it
• 2. Specify: when, where, with whom, what the client was doing
• 3. Attribute the exception to the client's actions: "How did you manage that?"
• 4. Strengthen: "What does this say about you?"
• 5. Translate into a plan: "What of this can you use now?"

When to use:

• In every session, especially with the request "nothing is working"
• After a relapse — look for exceptions inside the relapse period
• When the client is convinced that their problem is unchanging
• As a transition from describing the problem to building the solution
• To form a plan based on behavior the client has already proven

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not confuse accidental exceptions (circumstances) with intentional ones (the client's actions) — work with the intentional ones
• ⚠️ Do not force it if the client sees no exceptions — switch to scaling or coping questions
• ⚠️ Do not devalue small exceptions — they matter as anchor points

De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; González Suitt et al. 2019

Two separate scales for two different parameters: motivation to change (how much I want) and confidence in success (how much I can). A gap between high motivation and low confidence points not to resistance but to a deficit of resources. Scaling visualizes progress and gives the client a language to talk about change. The question "why not lower" always helps to uncover hidden resources.

• 1. Introduce the scale from 0 to 10 (0 = no motivation/confidence, 10 = the maximum)
• 2. Ask the current position: "Where are you on this scale now?"
• 3. Inquire why not lower: "What is already there that holds you at [X], and not at zero?"
• 4. A small step up: "What is needed to be at [X+1]?"
• 5. With low confidence — move on to looking for resources and past successes

When to use:

• When assessing readiness for change at the initial stage
• When the client doubts the possibility of change
• At the start and end of the session to track dynamics
• When motivation and confidence diverge — to diagnose the obstacles

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not interpret low confidence as resistance — it is a signal of a resource deficit
• ⚠️ Motivation and confidence are different constructs, assess them separately
• ⚠️ Do not push for moving up the scale — accept the current position as the starting point

Isebaert, 2016; De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; González Suitt et al. 2019

The client is invited to describe in detail life without the problem or with the problem solved. In the Bruges adaptation the emphasis is not only on the absence of the problem but also on what will be present — new actions, relationships, meanings. The question is applied flexibly: in the form of the classical "Miracle Question" or as a "morning walk" through the preferred future. The link with exceptions strengthens the realism of the picture of the future.

• 1. Prepare: "Let me ask you an unusual question."
• 2. Ask the Miracle Question: "Imagine that at night a miracle happened and the problem was solved. What would be different in the morning?"
• 3. Specify: "How will you notice it? What is the first thing that will change?"
• 4. Inquire what of this is already happening sometimes (the link with exceptions)
• 5. Identify a minimal sign of movement toward this future

When to use:

• In the second half of the first session or at the start of the second
• When the client is stuck describing the problem
• When setting treatment goals — to specify the desired result
• When the client's goal is formulated only as the absence of the problem

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not apply mechanically — the question must sound natural in the context of the session
• ⚠️ If the client cannot picture the future — that is diagnostically important (depression, hopelessness), do not force it
• ⚠️ With uncommitted clients do not start with this question — first establish contact

De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; Isebaert, 2016; Springer, 2024

The inquiry into changes that occurred between booking the appointment and the first meeting. Some clients notice improvements already in the waiting period — attributing these changes to the client's own actions strengthens self-efficacy. The technique sets the key tone of the first session: "Something is already happening — before we have begun". This immediately shifts the focus from the problem to resources.

• 1. At the start of the first session ask: "What has changed since you made the appointment?"
• 2. If there are changes — inquire in detail: "How did it happen? What did you do?"
• 3. Link with the preferred future: "Is this similar to what you want to reach?"
• 4. Reinforce: "How could you continue doing this?"

When to use:

• Only in the first session — before the description of the problem begins
• If the answer is "nothing has changed" — move on to scaling or exceptions
• When you need to quickly create a resourceful focus from the first minutes of the meeting

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not interpret the changes for the client — let them describe what happened
• ⚠️ If the client answers "nothing" — accept it without pressure and move on without insistence
• ⚠️ Use only in the first session — in subsequent sessions the "What is better?" technique is used

Isebaert, 2016; González Suitt et al. 2019

A key difference of the Bruges Model from traditional programs: relapse is not seen as a failure requiring prevention, but as part of the process of change carrying information. The therapist works not with prevention but with learning through the experience of relapse. The questions are aimed at understanding what was holding the person before the relapse and how to come back to what was working. Exceptions are sought inside the relapse period itself.

• 1. Accept the fact of the relapse without judgment: "It happens. What can we learn from this?"
• 2. Inquire what came before: "What changed? What was different when it was holding?"
• 3. Look for exceptions inside the relapse: "Were there moments when you held — even partially?"
• 4. Return to what was working before: "What was helping before this? How to come back to it?"
• 5. Take a small step: "What will you do today?"

When to use:

• On any relapse after a period of abstinence or control
• On "slips" in other contexts — not only addiction
• When the client comes with guilt, shame, and a sense of failure
• To restore the therapeutic alliance after a slip

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not interpret the relapse as a "failure of therapy" or "lack of motivation"
• ⚠️ Avoid lecturing and lists of triggers — work with the client's specific experience
• ⚠️ Do not return to negotiating the goal at once — first restore contact and safety

Isebaert, 2016; De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; coping.us, 2016

A specific adaptation for clients referred under pressure (court, employer, family) or coming under duress. The therapist does not try to impose motivation and does not interpret the absence of a request as "resistance". Instead, the inquiry asks what significant others want and what the minimal benefit for the client themselves is from being in therapy. The aim of the first session is to build enough contact for a next meeting.

• 1. Acknowledge the situation openly: "I understand that you are not here by your own choice"
• 2. Inquire into the expectations of the referrer: "What should change, in the view of those who referred you?"
• 3. Find the client's minimal own interest: "Is there something that you personally would like to change — even something quite small?"
• 4. Give compliments for the resources shown under pressure
• 5. Agree on a minimal step the client is comfortable with

When to use:

• First session with referred clients (court, family, employer)
• On "loss of motivation" during treatment — the level has dropped to Uncommitted
• When the client openly says they do not want to be here
• Under family pressure on the client as a condition for keeping the relationship

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not lecture about the harms of alcohol — that strengthens the alienation
• ⚠️ Do not interpret silence as resistance — accept it as a way of communicating
• ⚠️ Do not require "acknowledgment of the problem" — that is not a condition of the Bruges Model

Isebaert, 2016; Isebaert, 2007; Journal of Solution Focused Practices, 2022

The Bruges Model does not require abstinence as a mandatory condition of treatment. Harm reduction is organically built into the SF approach: the client themselves chooses the goal (abstinence or controlled use), and the therapist works with the goal the client has chosen. This is a fundamental divergence from traditional programs such as the "12 Steps". The criteria of success are defined by the client, not by the program.

• 1. Present both options without preference: "Some choose full abstinence, others — to learn to drink differently. What suits you?"
• 2. With the choice of controlled use — specify: how much, how often, in which situations
• 3. Define success criteria agreed with the client
• 4. Regularly review the realism of the goal on the basis of the diary
• 5. If needed — provide information about medical risks, non-directively

When to use:

• When setting therapeutic goals at the start of the work
• When the client rejects abstinence as a goal
• When reviewing the contract — if the chosen goal turned out to be unrealistic
• To reduce shame and increase readiness to seek help

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ In severe physical dependence — inform about the medical risks of controlled use, do not replace clinical assessment with the principle of autonomy
• ⚠️ Do not replace clinical assessment with the principle of autonomy in clear medical danger
• ⚠️ Review the goal if the chosen variant is not working — without judgment

De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; Isebaert, 2016; González Suitt et al. 2019; Franklin, 2021

Open questions aimed at uncovering how the client is coping with a difficult situation — even when "nothing helps". Especially important for clients in crisis or in chronically hard situations where exceptions are difficult to find. Studies show that coping questions increase the number of abstinent days. Attributing endurance to the client's actions creates an anchor in the hardest moment.

• 1. Acknowledge the difficulty of the situation: "You are coping with a very hard situation"
• 2. Ask a coping question: "How do you manage to keep going?"
• 3. Specify: "What exactly are you doing that helps — even a little?"
• 4. Attribute: "This says something important about you"
• 5. Translate into a resource for the plan

When to use:

• When the client is in crisis or describing a hopeless situation
• When there are "no" exceptions — as a bridge to scaling
• With high hopelessness and depression
• As an entry point with a heavy emotional state in the client at the start of the session

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not ask in acute suicidal risk without a prior safety assessment
• ⚠️ Do not use as a way to avoid discussing the real difficulties — first acknowledge the pain
• ⚠️ Do not rush — give the client time to truly think about the question

Isebaert, 2016; González Suitt et al. 2019; coping.us, 2016

A structured feedback at the end of the session: the therapist gives compliments (recognition of the client's efforts and resources) and offers a between-session task. A compliment is not praise "for correct behavior" but the recognition of what the client is already doing in line with their values. The type of task is adapted to the level of engagement: an observational task for the Uncommitted, a behavioral one for the Consultative.

• 1. Take a "time out" before the feedback (2–3 minutes of reflection or stepping out of the room)
• 2. Formulate the compliments: what the therapist noticed valuable in the client and their efforts
• 3. Give a "bridge" — the link between the compliments and the task
• 4. Offer a task matching the level of engagement: observational / reflective / behavioral
• 5. Ask the client's reaction to the task

When to use:

• At the end of every session — a mandatory element of the Bruges protocol
• At the closing of the work — for summing up and forming autonomy
• With low self-esteem of the client — compliments as the main focus

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Compliments must be concrete and sincere, not generic ("well done")
• ⚠️ The task must not be harder than the client is ready to do — better less and realistic
• ⚠️ Do not assign behavioral tasks to uncommitted clients — only observational ones

Isebaert, 2016; González Suitt et al. 2019

Every following session begins with the question of what has improved since the last meeting. This sets an orientation toward change rather than toward the problem and signals to the client: change is possible and likely. If nothing has improved — that is also important information: one can move to coping questions or review the goal. The "what is better" question is the standard opening of every Bruges session from the second onward.

• 1. Open the session: "What has gotten better since our last meeting?"
• 2. If there are improvements — inquire in detail: "How did it happen? What did you do?"
• 3. If nothing is better: "How do you manage to hold? What kept things from getting worse?"
• 4. On worsening — move to the post-relapse conversation
• 5. Use the answer as the starting point of the session

When to use:

• The start of every session from the second onward — a mandatory protocol element
• When assessing the dynamics of treatment
• To maintain orientation toward the solution, not the problem

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not interpret the answer "nothing" as a failure or a reason for alarm
• ⚠️ Do not move straight to the problem on a negative answer — first ask about coping
• ⚠️ The question must sound sincere, not formal — otherwise the client gives a socially desirable answer

Isebaert, 2016; coping.us, 2016

A principled stance of the Bruges Model: the therapist never works toward a goal the client does not share, even if that goal seems "correct" from a clinical point of view. The therapist may inform but not redefine the goal. This includes the recognition of the client's right to controlled use as a legitimate treatment goal. The goal must be formulated positively — what will be, not what will not be.

• 1. Clarify the client's goal in their own words
• 2. Specify: "How will you know that you have reached this?"
• 3. Make sure the goal is formulated positively (what will be, not what will not be)
• 4. Make sure the goal is realistic and within the client's zone of influence
• 5. Work only with this goal, do not substitute it with the "correct" one

When to use:

• Throughout the whole treatment — as a constant orientation
• Especially important under pressure from third parties (family, court)
• When you sense the client is working "for the therapist" rather than for themselves
• When reviewing the course — make sure the new goal is still the client's

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not confuse client-centeredness with permissiveness: in medical danger — inform
• ⚠️ Distinguish the client's own goal from the expectations of the referrer
• ⚠️ A goal formulated as a negation ("not to drink") requires a positive reformulation

Isebaert, 2016; De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; González Suitt et al. 2019

Unlike directive approaches, the goal of treatment — including the choice between abstinence and controlled use — is formulated together with the client, not set by the program. The client's participation in choosing the goal increases adherence and self-efficacy. The contract is not a legal document but a living agreement, reviewed as changes happen. This is a key element distinguishing the Bruges Model from traditional programs such as the "12 Steps".

• 1. Ask the client: "What is your goal regarding use?"
• 2. Inquire into both options (abstinence or controlled use) without preference
• 3. Discuss the realism of the goal in light of previous attempts
• 4. Lock in the goal in concrete, observable terms
• 5. Agree on intermediate review points for the contract

When to use:

• First and second session — before the main work begins
• On any relapse or need to review the course of treatment
• When the client expresses ambivalence about the goal
• Under pressure from third parties (family, court, employer)

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not impose abstinence as the only correct goal even with medical indications — inform, but not directively
• ⚠️ With medical contraindications to use, provide information while keeping the right of choice with the client
• ⚠️ Review the contract when new data appear — it is living, not final

De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; Isebaert, 2016; González Suitt et al. 2019

The client keeps a use diary between sessions, recording not only the facts of use but also the context — the situation, emotions, preceding thoughts, as well as the days without use or with less use. In the Bruges Model the diary is oriented toward discovering exceptions and patterns of success, not only toward monitoring the problem. It is a tool of inquiry, not of control.

• 1. Introduce the diary as a tool of inquiry, not of control: "We want to study together what is happening"
• 2. Define what exactly to record: amount, situation, mood, exceptions
• 3. In the next session start with the diary: "What did you notice?"
• 4. Highlight patterns of success and patterns of risk
• 5. Use the diary data to refine the goal and the plan

When to use:

• With clients at the "Consultative" and "Expert" levels — do not assign to the uncommitted
• When you need to understand the patterns triggering use
• To track progress between sessions
• On the move from setting the goals to realizing them

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Position it as inquiry, not as a task or reporting
• ⚠️ If the diary is not kept — do not criticize, inquire what got in the way (informative in itself)
• ⚠️ Do not turn it into a tool of shame and self-punishment

De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; Isebaert, 2016; NOVA, 2016

In the Bruges Model significant others (partner, family, friends) are seen as part of the system of changes, not only as those affected or as a source of pressure. The therapist may work with close ones either separately or together with the client. The key question: who in the surroundings will support the change and how to activate them as a resource. This is the systemic component of the Bruges Model.

• 1. Build a map of the social environment: "Who among the close ones knows about your situation?"
• 2. Identify potential allies: "Who of them would support you in change?"
• 3. Discuss how and what to talk about with the close ones
• 4. If possible — invite significant others to a joint session
• 5. Inquire what significant others will notice when the changes happen

When to use:

• From the second session onward, where there are significant relationships
• On a relapse — activation of supporting resources is mandatory
• When isolation is a sustaining factor of the addiction
• Under high family tension around the use problem

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not turn significant others into supervisors or observers
• ⚠️ Remember that the expectations of the close ones may conflict with the client's goals
• ⚠️ Work with the client's stance, do not switch sides to the close ones

Isebaert, 2016; De Shazer & Isebaert, 2003; González Suitt et al. 2019

The therapist invites the client to look at the situation through the eyes of a significant other — partner, child, friend. This strengthens motivation when the client sees themselves from the outside, and helps to specify the preferred future through observable changes in relationships. Relationship questions are a systemic component of the Bruges Model, borrowed from systemic psychotherapy.

• 1. Choose a significant other together with the client
• 2. Ask the question from their perspective: "If your wife were here, what would she say about you?"
• 3. Inquire what the significant other will notice on a change
• 4. Use the answer to specify the goal
• 5. If needed — bring in the "real voice" of the significant other (invite them to a session)

When to use:

• When the goal is unclear or abstract — to specify it through relationships
• Under high family tension around the problem
• To strengthen motivation through the perspective of close ones
• When the client loses the meaning of the changes — to recall the impact on important people

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not use as pressure ("for the sake of the family") — the client's stance comes first
• ⚠️ Do not substitute the client's own motivation with the expectations of others
• ⚠️ With high guilt — use carefully, so as not to amplify self-blame

Isebaert, 2016; the systemic component of the Bruges Model

A unique meta-frame of the Bruges Model: the therapist regularly assesses three blocks of factors that determine effectiveness. Client factors (resources, motivation, history of changes) — 40% of the contribution. Relationship factors (alliance, acceptance, empathy) — 30%. Hope and expectation factors — 15%. Specific techniques — only 15%. This orients the therapist: if the work is not moving, it is most likely the alliance that is broken, not the "wrong" technique that has been chosen.

• 1. Assess client resources at the start of the work: "What in this person works for change?"
• 2. Monitor the quality of the alliance: regularly ask for feedback on the course of the session
• 3. Work with hope: "How much do you believe that change is possible?"
• 4. Match techniques to the client, not the other way round
• 5. On stalling — check which of the three blocks is broken: resources, alliance, or hope

When to use:

• As a meta-perspective on the whole therapeutic work — a constant background
• At moments when therapy is not moving — diagnosis through this frame
• When you sense the techniques are not working
• In supervision or self-supervision to understand the dynamics of the case

Key phrases:

Follow-up questions:

Warnings:

• ⚠️ Do not fetishize technique — if the alliance is broken, no technique will help
• ⚠️ Restore the alliance before continuing the work with the content
• ⚠️ Assess regularly, not only in crisis — alliance problems often go unnoticed gradually

Isebaert, 2016; Wampold & Lambert (common factors research)