Solution Focused Intervention: Application and Analysis

This essay provides a comprehensive overview of solution-focused intervention (SFI), a therapeutic approach emphasizing solutions rather than problems. The introduction sets the stage with a relatable scenario, highlighting the core concept of focusing on solutions. The essay traces the history of SFI, originating from family therapy, and its development by Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer. It explains the key principles of SFI, including focusing on the client's solutions, the client as the expert, identifying what works, and the importance of small changes. The essay then details the six key techniques used in SFI: goal setting, scaling questions, presupposition questions, miracle questions, positive feedback, and tasks or homework. It also covers the assumptions underlying the model, such as the existence of exceptions to every problem and the client's desire for change. The essay highlights the benefits of SFI, such as its brevity, client-centeredness, and collaborative nature, and it provides a practical example of its use in a real-world scenario. The essay concludes by emphasizing the effectiveness of SFI and its potential for positive outcomes in various therapeutic contexts.

Running head: Solution focused intervention
1
Solution Focused Intervention
Name of the Student
Institution

Solution focused intervention
2
Introduction
What comes to your mind when you hear of solution-focused intervention? Here is
something to think about; imagine that you are an employee in the technical department of a
company that manufactures leather products. One of the machines that process the raw animal
skin has eventually broken down forcing the whole process to stop. The extent of this breaking
down is severe in that it calls for a new one since repairing can even be more costly. This is
because the breaking down is the due failure of about one thousand components inside the
machine. Due to procedures and protocols, you are required to appear before the board member
and explain this for its approval. On the very day of the meeting, you receive questions such as:
explain how the machine produces leather form the raw skin? Specifically, which part of the
machine has broken down? Please explain how the machine operates, how improved are the new
machine’s components? Please tell us why the machine is breaking down at such a time? What a
frustration! It’s obvious that the thought about this would be that all this question doesn’t matter.
Buying a new machine, however, would fix the whole problem. In our case, it is not really
important to know how the machine operates so as to buy a new one. Of course, it would be
important to know how to rely on the new one but going to the fine detail will not solve the
problem in any way. The idea in this illustration is similar to that that is in the solution-focused
therapy. You don’t have to understand the problem into the finer details but it would be helpful
to go directly into seeking the solution. This essay aims at shedding more light on this therapy so
as to give a clear deep understanding of the same.
The history of solution-focused therapy

Solution focused intervention
3
Solution-focused therapy is one of the therapies that exist which puts emphasis on
discussing the solution rather than the problem. It, however, doesn’t blindly dismiss the whole of
discussing the problem in pursuit of a solution but just stresses on where efforts should be. This
therapy was developed in the year 1880 and the source of this therapy was the family therapy,
from where, this recent therapy was derived (Burg, & Mayhall, 2002). Its pioneers were Insoo
Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer who identified that a lot of energy was used in discussing ‘the
problem’ such as symptoms rather than finding the solution of the same. This therapy is also
referred to as solution-focused brief therapy. The word “brief” turns out to be very key since it
defines the main objective of this therapy. The primary aim behind the application of this therapy
was related to its immediate implementation within shortest time, thereby, the time spend in the
therapy becomes shorter and decreases the duration of suffering for the sufferer (Bliss, & Bray,
2009). This therapy seems to be focused on “what works” at a given time with utmost simplicity
and in a practical way (Hosany, Wellman, & Lowe, 2007). This therapy interconnects past with
that of the present and to some extent future of the health and wellbeing of the patient, however,
sometimes the intervention which has worked for the patient in the past, does not work for the
present or future health situation of the patient (Burg, & Mayhall, 2002). It is one of the most
used therapy by many health workers all over the globe disregarding whether they are qualified
or unqualified (Worden, 2018). It addresses many problems in individuals or families no matter
their magnitude. It is however not advisable using this therapy for severe mental health issues
(Reeves, Parker & Konkle-Parker, 2016). This approach of this therapy was developed by
Guterman and De Castro at a therapy center in a place called Milwaukee as these researchers
were greatly influenced by the mental research model (MRI) which was very dominant at that
time period. According to this model, the problem was related to incidences between individuals

Solution focused intervention
4
rather than within them (De Castro, & Guterman, 2008). The problem was viewed to arise when
people respond to the normal difficulties of life in a way that made them worse. The therapist in
the MRI was therefore tasked to find out how the solution attempted by the client would lead to a
problem and if they found out, they were supposed to help the client find an alternative thing to
do. These two therapists were able to notice the simplicity this therapy had using which it can
affect or improve the health of the patients. It was evident that the client carried the seeds of the
solution and probably did not need any therapist to help them through.
The principle of the therapy
The therapy is driven by a number of principles as we will see it in this part. One of the
principles is that to find a solution, it will be of no importance to analyze the problem but rather
one can choose to focus on the client’s solution (Seedall, 2009). The second principle which is
closely connected to this states that the client is the expert, especially during the interviews held.
The model tends to believe that the client with the problem already has a solution in him/her and
all that is needed is the right environment to realize and implement it. Further, they always
thought that the patients are able to change their mindset in a proper place and guidance and
hence, they involved the patient in the care facility (Gingerich, & Eisengart, 2000). The other
principle is that if something is realized to be functional and doing good to the client during this
process, one is required to put more emphasis on it and do more of it. However, it should be
evident that this therapy provides the right to autonomy as they were able to reject the
intervention of the therapy. This takes us to the other principle that states that one should seek to
find the differences that eventually makes the whole difference (Bliss, & Bray, 2009). This can
be connected with the principle that advocates for one to find out that which works and ignore
that which doesn’t have any positive outcome. The last principle states that if the practitioner

Solution focused intervention
5
realizes that something is working well for the client, he/she should not attempt to fix it in any
way at all. These principles are very vital since they give this model some consistency.
Techniques used by the model
We must have realized that this is a short-term model that uses the method of goal focus
to bring about change. The model uses six techniques to bring about these changes (Nylund,
&Corsiglia, 1994). The first technique is goal setting. The advisor should however not be the one
to formulate the goals. He/she should help the client for example by use of a conversation. The
goal should be created in a positive manner and it should be in form of a process. The success of
the process should not be out of a control since the client’s interest should be respected too. This
goal should also be stated in the client's own words. The second technique is the scaling
question. They are very helpful in the goal formulation as the help in the definition of vague or
hard issues (Gingerich, & Peterson, 2013). It can be at a basic level asking the client to scale
something in the scale of 1 to 10. The other technique is the presupposition question. This is
asked with a presupposition that a certain answer exists. At times this technique can be left out
but it is one of the important strategies for seeking change. The fourth technique is the use of
miracle questions. This technique acts as the backbone but many of the times it is deliver5ed in a
poor way because of the lack of cautiousness from the practitioner. It helps the student be in a
day-dream of possible outcomes. It is not a single question but a continuous conversation that
lead to an exploration of the possibility of a change. The fifth technique is the use of positive
feedback where the practitioner compliments the client hence motivating him/her. The last and
the sixth techniques are the use of task or homework. This helps the client to bridge the sessions
she/he had with the practitioner in the office into his/her own life (Bozeman, 2000). By use of all
this six techniques without ignoring any, the whole process is a success (Smith, 2010).

Solution focused intervention
6
Assumptions made by the model
The model, however, operates under several assumptions as we are going to see in the
part below. The first assumption of this model is that there is always be an exemption in every
problem no matter the magnitude at which it is in (Bozeman, 2000). The models also assume that
the client always tends to present one of the sides of the problem and therefore there is need to
help him see the other side of the same (Gingerich, & Eisengart, 2000). There is also an
assumption that small changes in return cause an establishment of other big changes. The
practitioners of the therapy also assume that each of the clients is unique and in the same way
each solution is unique. There is also this assumption that every client have the desire to change
and they are doing all they can do so as to bring the change (Walter, & Peller, 2013).
Why the model?
This happens to one of the briefest models is problem-solving as it aims at finding a
solution in the shortest time possible. It is one of the models that focus on the client's abilities
and competencies hence it becomes easy for the client to embrace it (O'Connell, 2005). The
model is also very collaborative as it brings together so many ideas making it very
accommodative and appealing to the clients. The model, however, can be disregarded because of
its simplicity from afar but in the real sense, it remains to be one of the best.
USES OF SBT IN PRACTICE
I have tasted of the advantages that come with this model as seen in my DVD role play in
an interview with one of my clients. He was depressed and the main aim was to get him out of
this havoc. This led me to go ahead to use this model as explained above in the essay considering

Solution focused intervention
7
I was well conversant with it. As mentioned earlier, this model incorporates of six techniques
namely; goals, scaling questions, presumption question, miracle question, positive feedback and
tasks (Rhodes, & Ajmal, 1995). I realized that my client was been depressed by reasons such as
the loss of his dog, been away from his lovely wife among others. As the models' mentions, more
efforts should be put on what works and that which doesn’t should be ignored. I was also aware
that we all had to look for a solution and not to discuss the problem, as it would make things
worse than its recent situation. The solution we were seeking should come in the shortest time
possible as this was the essence of the model and it was one of those qualities that made it one of
its kinds (Slobodin & de Jong, 2015). I used all my strategic knowledge to make the outcome
like I wanted and therefore I did not employ this technique blindly to every individual (Rhodes,
& Ajmal, 1995).Further I was also provided with the chance to start the model and so as to come
up with the findings that would further help me in the feature in my occupation as a nurse even
to other clients that I would encounter in future (Miller, & Shazer, 2000). Putting in mind that
this model was applicable to a wide range of situation, I applied enthusiastically for I realized it
would benefit me too as a person.
I led the client in a conversation that aimed at us attaining some goals that would guide
the whole process, I was aware that if I start the process, the patient will not be able to trust the
process, therefore, I would make the process to proceed in such a way that the patient can take
charge of the conversation (Lethem, 2002). For example, he was able to conclude that would
ensure that he spends the morning with his wife as they took breakfast. He was also able to
mention a few things that he would do immediately after we left the meeting. This brought the
whole aspect of being specific. Unlike other models, SBT uses specific and measurable goals
rather than vague ones. In such an interview I held, this could be successful by having some open

Solution focused intervention
8
end conversation which eventually helps him/her to establish the goals all by himself. This was,
however, a successful technique trial. As we finished the small interview the client had some
specific measurable attainable and reali8stic goals which would eventually facilitate the whole
process of change (Lee,1997).
Scaling is another important tool in the pursuit of a solution. This is questions that help so
much in a discussion in being more specific and also identifying the steps needed for the
improvement made. This should however not limit the practitioner to use questions only. After
this question is asked, the answer is given by the client always lead to a conversion as far as
solution pursuit is concerned (Lipchik, 2002. For example in the discussion, a client rates his
some aspect as 3, which determined that he/she is suffering from deficiency and the conversation
that comes after this conversation could help, so that improvement could be made. As
experienced in my case, the student rates the moments he had with his wife as 3 out of 10 which
helped me to know that specifically this issue can be categorized so as to even find a relevant
solution.
The other technique that I employed was the pursuit of the solution by the use of miracle
questions. Miracle questions are basically that which pushes the client to imagine that the
solution has happened. They are framed in a way that they create the bigger picture on what
he/she aims (Corcoran, & Pillai, 2007). This was superficial and it felt like delusion to the
patients. This helped the client to see how his or her life changes after overcoming the concern.
During my interview with the client, I asked I would provoke to tell me how he thinks the feature
would be when he was happy with his family and also having enough time with them (Hall,

Solution focused intervention
9
2016). This would cause him to pause and think for a moment and eventually the smile he gave
was self-explanatory that he was enthusiastic about getting the solution. Asking these question
should be done in a gentle and quiet giving attention to the facial expression (Berg, 1994). This
questions should also give the client some adequate time to think as at times they might `give a
negative response such as I don’t know.
Another technique closely related to this one was the use of presupposition question
where the make the practitioner act like a lawyer at the time. They are however forgotten easily
despite their great role in the pursuit of change. These are questioned used assumes that whatever
the student is being asked has already happened they are very important since most of the time
an interview is undertaken, the client tends to give a dismissive answer such as “No”. They,
therefore, are a tool that facilitates more affirmative answers (Hosany, Wellman, & Lowe, 2007).
In my interview, I asked the client to tell me of the times he went to work without doing his daily
chores due to waking up late and there no way he could have given a dismissive answer. On the
other hand, if I had asked him if there is a day he missed his daily chores due to waking up late,
probably the answer given would be a no. For example, if in a given situation the practitioner
presupposes that there is an alternative, the client is convinced to continue focusing on the
positive side of the story as the model emphasizes.
There are however some of the techniques that I failed to use that was very important in
making the application of the model a success. One of it is the positive feedback. This a very
important aspect where the practitioner seeks to know the areas where the client excels so as to
give a positive feedback on the same (Mason, Breen, & Whipple, 1994). This can be done by
complementing the client in the areas that he/she does well as the model states. It helps in
motivating the client to be more zealous in seeking a solution alongside serving as a motivation

Solution focused intervention
10
on the same mission. If the client is well motivated, the ‘brief’ aspect of the model becomes even
more explicit as the process of change becomes shorter than expected (Selekman, 1997). The
other technique that I omitted was the giving of the task. This is a technique that majo0rs on the
change process outside the interview room. This is because the client has some ‘take-home’
assignment that he is supposed to work Mon in pursuit of a change (Berg, & Miller, 1992). I
believe if employed this technique the whole process would have taken a short time that it
would. The technique basically avoids stagnation in the change process as the client does not rely
solely on the session held with the practitioner in the interview chambers.
Conclusion
SBT is one of the most resourceful models that I have encountered as a nurse as far as
seeking a solution to problems is concerned. It is a model that is very wide in is application and it
guarantees up to date solution to any challenge. I believe it will cause the change in my client’s
behavior in the shortest time possible. The solution brought about by this model is permanent
and not temporal as other models seems to do. This is because the whole model seems to respect
the client’s ideas. The solution arrived at is birthed by the client all by his/her own as indicated
earlier in the assumptions. The model is one of the briefest and these facilities helping clients
before things turn into a worse condition. Having goals in the model makes this model even
more admirable. This is an indication that this model is not a trial and error model, it clearly
knows what it needs s to achieve in a client’s life. The goals are on top measurable, specific and
attainable. They are formulated by the client himself/herself and therefore they fit him/her well.
Basing on these advantages and other more, I believe this is a model meant to take my career to a
whole new level. I will have an easier time with the patients who come to me with the different

Solution focused intervention
11
situation at hand. I will be in a position to help them formulate solutions that are compatible with
their need hence saving time and energy.

Solution focused intervention
12
References
Berg, I. K. (1994). Family-based services: A solution-focused approach. WW Norton & Co.
Berg, I. K., & Miller, S. D. (1992). Working with the problem drinker: A solution-focused
approach. WW Norton & Co.
Bliss, E. V., & Bray, D. (2009). The smallest solution focused particles: Towards a minimalist
definition of when therapy is solution focused. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 28(2), 62-
74.
Bozeman, B. N. (2000). The efficacy of solution-focused therapy techniques on perceptions of
hope in clients with depressive symptoms (Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Information &
Learning).
Burg, J. E., & Mayhall, J. L. (2002). Techniques and interventions of solution-focused advising.
NACADA Journal, 22(2), 79-85.
Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2007). A review of the research on solution-focused therapy. British
Journal of Social Work, 39(2), 234-242.
De Castro, S., & Guterman, J. T. (2008). Solution‐focused therapy for families coping with
suicide. Journal of Marital and Family therapy, 34(1), 93-106.
Gingerich, W. J., & Eisengart, S. (2000). Solution‐focused brief therapy: A review of the
outcome research. Family Process, 39(4), 477-498.
Gingerich, W. J., & Peterson, L. T. (2013). The effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy:
A systematic qualitative review of controlled outcome studies. Research on Social Work
Practice, 23(3), 266-283.