PRACTICE model

1. Introduction

Version followed: Stephen Palmer's seven-step PRACTICE model as set out in Palmer (2008), Coaching Psychology International 1(1), the open-access write-up of the 2007 original (Palmer 2007, The Coaching Psychologist 3(2)). Example questions are filled in from the step-by-step question sets in two papers Palmer co-wrote in Danish (Spaten, Imer & Palmer 2012 and 2014). Palmer's later "Revisiting the P" paper (2011; reprinted 2022 in Coaching Practiced) offers other meanings for the P. That variant is noted but not detailed [uncertain].

PRACTICE is a coaching model, not a therapy. It is a structured problem-solving sequence that Palmer adapted from Barbara Wasik's (1984) seven-step problem-solving model. That model belongs to the D'Zurilla, Goldfried and Nezu problem-solving tradition. The acronym stands for Problem identification; Realistic, relevant goals developed; Alternative solutions generated; Consideration of consequences; Target most feasible solution(s); Implementation of chosen solution(s); Evaluation. Palmer's main change to Wasik's sequence was to add solution-focused methods for finding and carrying out solutions: scaling, exception-seeking, the miracle question and attention to strengths. He also kept problem-talk to a minimum. [source: Palmer 2008]

Theory of change: people get unstuck when a vague difficulty becomes a defined issue with a realistic goal. They then lay out and weigh several options, commit to the most workable one, break it into steps, act, and review what they learned. Because the acronym is easy to remember, the coachee can later run the sequence alone, so the coach is passing on a portable skill. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten, Imer & Palmer 2012, 2014, citing Edgerton & Palmer 2005] Palmer and co-authors report using it in business, performance, executive, career, redundancy, health and life coaching. They also report using it in stress management, counselling, psychotherapy, leadership and training. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012]

2. Framework

Steps, goals and typical content [source: Palmer 2008 table and text; question wording paraphrased; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 for the Danish PRAKSIS question sets]

Step	Goal	Typical content
P: Problem identification	Name the issue the coachee wants to work on and start moving towards solutions	Topic for today, what they want to change, exceptions, how they would know it had improved, 0–10 scaling, reframing, miracle-type question
R: Realistic, relevant goals	Turn the issue into achievable goals	What they want to achieve; checks that the goal is relevant and realistic; SMART specification
A: Alternative solutions	Produce a range of options	List the options and write them down; ask what other options there are
C: Consideration of consequences	Weigh the options	What could happen with each option; rate how useful each one is on a 0–10 scale
T: Target most feasible solution(s)	Choose one or more options	Which option is most feasible or practical, which is best, and why
I: Implementation	Turn the choice into action	Break the option into manageable steps, then "go and do it" (quoted in Spaten et al. 2014; original wording in Palmer 2008)
E: Evaluation	Review the result and decide what comes next	How successful it was (0–10), what was learned, what to do differently, then end or take up another issue

Session count and format. None of the sources gives a session count [uncertain]. The model is used inside a coaching meeting, and forms based on the sequence (Palmer 2008, Appendix 1) are used between sessions. The Danish version puts the confidence rating at E: before implementation it asks how confident the coachee is of success, and after implementation how successful it was. This implies that one meeting runs P to I and a later meeting reviews (E). [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014; the session split is an inference, synthesis] Once coachees are experienced, Palmer offers two shorter sequences for simple issues. PIE is Problem definition, Implement a solution, Evaluate outcome. STIR is Select problem, Target a solution, Implement a solution, Review outcome. [source: Palmer 2008]

Typical practical format [synthesis]: sessions of 60–90 minutes, often 4–8 meetings over a few months. That is common UK coaching practice, not a PRACTICE specification. Start with a written contract that covers goals, confidentiality and its limits, and the coaching–therapy boundary (see Section 5). One issue usually takes P→I in one session, with E at the start of the next.

Moving between steps. The primary sources give the order but no formal criteria for moving on [uncertain]. The working criteria below are synthesis, drawn from what each step is meant to achieve:

P→R: the coachee can state in one or two sentences what they want to change. They can also say how they would notice improvement.
R→A: at least one goal is specific, under the coachee's influence, relevant to them and judged realistic.
A→C: the coachee has run out of new options after repeated prompts for more. Several real alternatives are on paper, not just one favoured plan.
C→T: every option has a usefulness rating and the coachee can say what makes the higher-rated ones better.
T→I: one option (sometimes with a backup) is chosen and the coachee can explain why.
I→E: there is a first step with a time attached, and the coachee has rated their confidence. If confidence is low (roughly 6 or under on 0–10), go back to I or T before ending.
E→end or loop: if the goal is met, end or pick a new issue. If not, use what was learned to return to P (redefine), R (adjust the goal), A (new options) or I (smaller steps).

3. Guiding principles

Problem-solving structure with a solution focus. Follow the seven steps in order but lean towards solutions and action. In practice, use the structure as a scaffold and keep moving the talk forward. [source: Palmer 2008]
Start with the person, not the problem. At a first meeting, invite the coachee to talk about themselves before any issue. You learn their resources and context. [source: Palmer 2008, citing O'Connell 2003]
Notice and name strengths. Point out the competence, strengths and qualities the coachee shows. Reflect specific strengths back as evidence they can use. [source: Palmer 2008]
Build on exceptions. Ask about times the problem is absent or less severe. These are often the source of the most feasible options. [source: Palmer 2008]
Scale throughout. Use 0–10 ratings for current position, option usefulness, confidence and success. Each rating is a quick progress measure and an opening for the question "what would move it up one point?" [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012]
Keep problem-talk to a minimum. Gather only as much problem description as you need to set a goal. Redirect a long account of the problem towards what the coachee wants instead. [source: Palmer 2008]
Goals must be realistic and relevant. Check each goal for relevance and achievability, and make it specific (SMART). This prevents unworkable plans and loss of motivation. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2014]
Generate options before judging them. Keep A (list options) separate from C (evaluate them). Hold back on critique until the list is complete. [source: Palmer 2008 orders the steps this way; the explicit "don't judge yet" advice comes from secondary sources (Mind Tools; Training Journal)]
Feasibility wins over perfection. At T, choose what is most practical, not an ideal solution. More than one option can be chosen. [source: Palmer 2008: "solution(s)"]
Break action into small steps. Turn the chosen option into manageable concrete steps. A vague plan should not leave the session. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2014]
Evaluate and learn. Every cycle ends with a rating and a lesson learned. A failed plan is information for the next cycle. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2014]
Socratic questioning. The coach mainly asks; the coachee does most of the thinking. The Danish authors treat this as central. Lead with questions and offer suggestions only after the coachee's own ideas are exhausted. [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014, citing Spaten 2011]
Teach the model for self-coaching. The acronym is a memory aid so the coachee can use it independently. Share it openly and give out the form. [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014, citing Edgerton & Palmer 2005; Palmer 2008 appendix forms]
Coaching is not therapy; work within competence. The coaching codes (EMCC/AC Global Code of Ethics; ICF) say that coaching is not counselling, psychotherapy or medical intervention. They also require practitioners to refer when a client needs a different form of help. In practice, contract which role you are in. If clinical need appears, step out of PRACTICE coaching (see Section 5). [source: Global Code of Ethics v4 2025; AC Code page; ICF 2018]
Confidentiality has stated limits. Tell the coachee at contracting that confidentiality is limited by law and by risk of danger to self or others, and get their agreement. [source: Global Code of Ethics v4 2025]
Use supervision. Coaching codes require regular supervision. Take boundary and referral dilemmas to a supervisor. [source: Global Code of Ethics v4 2025; ICF 2018]

4. Intervention inventory

These are the methods Palmer (2008) and the Danish papers attach to each step, in the order of the sequence. All example wording is illustrative and mine unless it is quoted. Palmer's table items are paraphrased, not reproduced. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]

4.1 Problem-free opening (before P)

Purpose / when: first meeting, and whenever rapport or resources are unclear. It builds a picture of the coachee's strengths and context before any problem is discussed. [source: Palmer 2008, citing O'Connell 2003]
Steps: (1) Ask the coachee to say something about themselves: work, interests, what they are good at. (2) Listen for skills, values and past successes, and jot them down. (3) Reflect one or two back. (4) Move to the session topic.
Example language (illustrative): "Before we get to what brought you here, tell me a bit about yourself: what you do, and what you enjoy or are good at."
Watch for: a coachee who launches straight into the problem. Let them, briefly, then come back to resources. It is working when you can list three or more resources to use later at A.

4.2 Strengths and competence spotting (all steps)

Purpose / when: throughout, especially when the coachee is discouraged or underrates their options. [source: Palmer 2008]
Steps: (1) Notice concrete examples of competence in what the coachee says. (2) Name the strength and the evidence for it. (3) Ask how that strength could apply to the current issue. This links to A.
Example language (illustrative): "You handled that client escalation calmly and got a result. What did you draw on there that might help with this?"
Watch for: praise that sounds generic or flattering. Keep it tied to evidence. It is working when the coachee starts naming their own strengths.

4.3 Problem identification questions (P)

Purpose / when: start of each new issue. Agree on what will be worked on today. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask what the coachee wants to discuss or work on today. (2) Ask what they would like to change. (3) Get a concrete recent example. (4) Summarise the issue in one sentence and check it with them. (5) If several issues come up, ask which matters most now and park the rest.
Example language (illustrative): "What would be most useful to focus on today?" "If this went well, what would be different?" "So the issue is that the weekly team meeting overruns and decisions don't get made. Is that it?"
Watch for: a long problem narrative. Summarise and move to exceptions or outcome questions (Principle: keep problem-talk to a minimum). Also watch for issues outside the coachee's control, and for clinical material (Section 5). It is working when the issue is stated in specific, changeable terms.

4.4 Exception-seeking questions (P)

Purpose / when: at P, and whenever the coachee says the problem is "always" there. It finds times the problem is absent or milder, and what was different then. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask when the problem doesn't happen or is less severe. (2) Get details: what was happening, what the coachee did, who was there. (3) Ask what they did to make that happen. (4) Note these as raw material for A.
Example language (illustrative): "Has there been a meeting recently that did finish on time? What was different about that one?"
Watch for: "never" answers. Scale instead ("when was it a 4 instead of a 2?"). It is working when the coachee notices something they already do that helps.

4.5 Outcome / sign-of-improvement questions (P, R)

Purpose / when: at P, to move from the problem towards what the coachee wants. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask how the coachee, and others, would know things had improved. (2) Push for observable signs. (3) Use the answers to draft the goal at R.
Example language (illustrative): "What's the first small thing you'd notice if this were getting better? What would your manager notice?"
Watch for: answers framed as the absence of something ("I wouldn't feel stressed"). Ask what they would be doing instead.

4.6 Scaling (P, C, I, E; throughout)

Purpose / when: at P for current position, at C for option usefulness, at I for confidence, at E for success. Ratings measure progress and open up talk about next steps. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014. Palmer's text uses 0–10 and its appendix form 1‐10. Pick one and use it consistently]
Steps: (1) Define the ends of the scale (0 = the problem at its worst or not solved at all; 10 = completely resolved). (2) Ask for the current number. (3) Ask why it isn't lower; this brings out existing resources. (4) Ask what one point higher would look like. (5) Record the number to compare next time.
Example language (illustrative): "On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is that this is fully sorted, where are you today?" "Why a 4 and not a 2?" "What would a 5 look like?"
Watch for: ratings given to please you, and very low ratings with signs of hopelessness (see Section 5 referral signs). It is working when the coachee can name concrete differences between points on the scale.

4.7 Reframing / alternative perspective (P)

Purpose / when: when the coachee's framing of the issue is narrow, rigid or self-defeating. [source: Palmer 2008 ("can the issue be viewed differently"); Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask whether the issue could be seen another way. (2) Offer perspective-taking prompts: how a respected colleague, a friend or the other party would see it. (3) Ask which framing gives more room to act. (4) Restate the issue in that framing if the coachee agrees.
Example language (illustrative): "How might someone you respect describe this situation?" "Is there another way to look at this that gives you more options?"
Watch for: reframes imposed by the coach. Let the coachee choose. It is working when the restated issue suggests new actions.

4.8 Miracle question or "problem gone" question (P)

Purpose / when: at P, to get a picture of the preferred future when the coachee is stuck in problem description or can't state a goal. Palmer allows either the standard solution-focused miracle question or his own variant: imagine waking up to find the problem gone, and say what is different. [source: Palmer 2008]
Steps: (1) Ask permission to use an unusual question. (2) Set the scene: tonight, while asleep, the issue is resolved, but the coachee doesn't know it happened. (3) Ask what they would first notice the next morning. (4) Follow up for detail: who else would notice, what they would do differently. (5) Look for parts of this that already happen (link to 4.4) and turn them into goal material at R.
Example language (illustrative): "Suppose you woke up tomorrow and this issue had been dealt with overnight. What's the first thing you'd notice that tells you it's gone?"
Watch for: fantasy answers outside the coachee's control ("my boss would have quit"). Ask what they would be doing differently. With a coachee who is distressed, the question can bring up grief or hopelessness; respond as in Section 5. It is working when the coachee describes concrete behaviour.

4.9 Structured exploration with a cognitive-behavioural model (optional at P)

Purpose / when: when the issue needs fuller assessment, especially stress-related or emotionally loaded issues. The Danish PRAKSIS paper suggests using SKAFT, the Danish version of Edgerton & Palmer's SPACE model, at the P step to explore the situation thoroughly. [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014; SGCP abstract of Edgerton & Palmer 2005]
Steps: Edgerton & Palmer (2005) describe SPACE as a cognitive-behavioural model for assessment, for explaining the cognitive model to clients and for building programmes. The full text is not drawn on here. The letters are usually given as Social context, Physiology, Action, Cognition, Emotion, but this is not confirmed [uncertain]. A cautious procedure [synthesis]: take one recent example and ask about the situation, body reactions, what the coachee did, what went through their mind and what they felt. Then pick one leverage point to carry into R.
Example language (illustrative): "In that meeting, what was going through your mind? What did you notice in your body? What did you do next?"
Watch for: this exploration can bring up clinical-level anxiety, low mood or trauma material. Check against the referral signs in Section 5.

4.10 Realistic, relevant goal setting (R)

Purpose / when: after P. Turn the defined issue into goals the coachee can achieve. [source: Palmer 2008 (SMART); Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 (relevance and realism checks; the Danish appendix uses specific, measurable, attractive, time-bound)]
Steps: (1) Ask what they want to achieve. (2) Check relevance: does this goal address the issue and matter to them? (3) Check realism: can they achieve it with their resources and influence? (4) Make it specific, measurable, attractive or achievable, and time-bound. (5) Write it down in the coachee's words.
Example language (illustrative): "What would you like to have achieved on this by the end of next month?" "How realistic is that, given everything else on your plate?" "How will we measure it?"
Watch for: goals that depend on other people changing, perfectionist goals, and goals that are really avoidance (e.g. "never feel anxious"). It is working when the coachee can say the goal back and rate it as worth pursuing.

4.11 Generating alternative solutions (A)

Purpose / when: after the goal is agreed. Produce as many options as possible before judging any of them. [source: Palmer 2008 (list the options, note them down); Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 (write them for an overview, ask for other alternatives); the repeated "what else?" prompt is from Training Journal, a secondary source]
Steps: (1) Ask what options the coachee has. (2) Write every option on paper or a whiteboard in the coachee's words. (3) Keep asking "what else?" until they run dry. (4) Prompt from earlier material: exceptions (4.4), strengths (4.2), what a respected other would do. (5) Defer all evaluation. If the coachee starts critiquing, note the point for C and keep generating.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's get all the options down before we judge any of them. What could you do?" "What else?" "What would you advise a friend in this spot?"
Watch for: stopping at one or two options, or a "yes, but" pattern (Section 5). Offer coach suggestions only after the coachee's ideas are exhausted, and label them as suggestions [synthesis]. It is working when there are several real alternatives, including at least one the coachee hadn't considered before.

4.12 Consideration of consequences with usefulness ratings (C)

Purpose / when: after A. Weigh each option's likely consequences and rate how useful it is. [source: Palmer 2008 (what could happen; usefulness 0–10); Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 (1–10)]
Steps: (1) Take each option in turn. (2) Ask what could happen if they did it: benefits, costs, risks, effects on others. (3) Ask for a usefulness rating from 0 (not useful at all) to 10 (extremely useful). (4) Write the rating beside the option. (5) For mid-range options, ask what would make them more useful; this may produce hybrid options.
Example language (illustrative): "If you raised it directly with your manager, what might happen?" "How useful does that option look, 0 to 10?" "What would make it an 8?"
Watch for: catastrophic predictions that rule out every option. Ask about best, worst and most likely outcomes [synthesis]. If catastrophic thinking is pervasive, consider a cognitive-behavioural approach or referral (Section 5). It is working when the ratings separate the options.

4.13 Targeting the most feasible solution(s) (T)

Purpose / when: after C. Commit to the most practical option or options. [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 (most feasible, best, and why). Choosing a backup option comes from Mind Tools, a secondary source]
Steps: (1) Review the rated list. (2) Ask which option is most feasible or practical. (3) Ask which is best and why. (4) Allow a combination of options. (5) Optionally name a fallback.
Example language (illustrative): "Looking at the ratings, which is most doable for you in the next fortnight?" "Why that one?" "And if it doesn't work, which would you try next?"
Watch for: choosing the highest-rated option even though it isn't feasible, or choosing to please the coach. It is working when the coachee can give a clear reason that is their own.

4.14 Implementation planning (I)

Purpose / when: after T. Turn the chosen option into concrete action. [source: Palmer 2008 (break into manageable steps, then act); Spaten et al. 2014 (how will you implement it, what exactly will you do, precise steps, get ready, "go and do it"); timeline and accountability come from Training Journal, a secondary source]
Steps: (1) Ask how they will put it into action. (2) Break it into small steps and write them down. (3) Set the first step: what, when, where, with whom. (4) Name likely obstacles and a plan for each [synthesis]. (5) Agree how they will record what happens before the next meeting. (6) Take a confidence rating (4.15).
Example language (illustrative): "What's the very first step, and when will you do it?" "What might get in the way, and what will you do if it does?"
Watch for: steps that are too big or vague ("be more assertive"). Shrink them until the coachee says they could do it this week. It is working when the first step is specific enough for someone else to check.

4.15 Confidence scaling (between I and E)

Purpose / when: at the end of I. Check commitment before the coachee leaves. [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask how confident they are of success, 1–10. (2) If the rating is low, ask what would raise it by one point, and adjust the plan (smaller step, more support, a different option). (3) Repeat until the rating is workable [synthesis on threshold].
Example language (illustrative): "How confident are you, 1 to 10, that you'll take that first step by Friday?" "What would make it a 7?"
Watch for: very high confidence that may mask avoidance, and persistently low confidence across plans (Section 5).

4.16 Evaluation (E)

Purpose / when: at the next meeting, or at the end of a cycle. Rate success, pull out learning and decide what next. [source: Palmer 2008 (success 0–10; what was learned; finish or move to another issue); Spaten et al. 2012, 2014 (what to do differently next time; anything to say before ending)]
Steps: (1) Ask what they did and what happened. (2) Ask for a success rating. (3) Ask what they learned about the issue and about themselves. (4) Ask what they would do differently. (5) Decide together: goal met, so finish or pick a new issue; partly met, so go back to I or A; not met, so revisit P or R. (6) Ask if there is anything else before closing.
Example language (illustrative): "How did it go, 0 to 10?" "What did you learn?" "Is this done, or shall we take another run at it?"
Watch for: self-blame after partial success. Credit the effort and the learning first. It is working when the coachee draws a lesson they can use elsewhere.

4.17 PRACTICE forms and between-session self-coaching

Purpose / when: to support work between sessions and to build independence. [source: Palmer 2008, Appendix 1 (a form based on the PRACTICE sequence); the acronym as a memory aid for self-use, Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]
Steps: (1) Explain the seven steps to the coachee once they have been through a cycle. (2) Give them a blank form; you can make your own with one box per step and rating lines at C and E. Don't copy Palmer's form verbatim [synthesis]. (3) Ask them to use it on a minor issue before the next session. (4) Review the form together at the next session.
Example language (illustrative): "We've been following a seven-step sequence. Here it is on one page, so you can use it on your own."
Watch for: forms filled in only at P (stuck in problem description). It is working when the coachee brings completed cycles.

4.18 Short sequences: PIE and STIR

Purpose / when: for experienced coachees with straightforward issues. They speed up the work. [source: Palmer 2008]
Steps: PIE: define the problem, implement a solution, evaluate the outcome. STIR: select the problem, target a solution, implement it, review the outcome. Use them in place of the full sequence when the options are obvious.
Example language (illustrative): "This one sounds simple enough for the short version: what's the issue, what will you do, and how will we check it worked?"
Watch for: issues that turn out to be more complex. Switch back to the full PRACTICE sequence.

4.19 Socratic questioning (across steps)

Purpose / when: throughout, to help the coachee reach their own conclusions. [source: Spaten et al. 2012, 2014, citing Spaten 2011]
Steps: ask open, guided questions that draw out the coachee's own evidence, options and reasoning. Summarise and ask what follows from it. Hold back your own answers.
Example language (illustrative): "What tells you that option wouldn't work?" "What does that suggest you could try?"

4.20 Other named elements (not described in the sources)

"Revisiting the P" variants: Palmer (2011, 2022) adapts the first step to the presenting issue. The keywords suggest these options for P: presenting issue, preferred outcome, preferred option, purpose. How each is used is unknown [uncertain]. Mind Tools reports that Palmer suggested replacing "problem" with "presenting issue" to reduce problem focus. In practice, "what's the presenting issue / what's your preferred outcome?" can open P without problem language [synthesis].
Visualised mastery ("Visualiseret mestring", Palmer 2011b): cited in the Danish papers as a related method but not described there. It is not detailed here [uncertain].

4.21 Referral conversation (boundary intervention)

Purpose / when: when referral signs appear (Section 5). This is ICF's published process for raising referral to a mental health professional. [source: ICF, Hullinger & DiGirolamo 2018]
Steps: (1) Choose a private, unhurried moment without distractions. (2) Open with concern for their wellbeing, in a calm, non-judgemental tone. (3) Describe the specific behaviours or changes you have observed. (4) Ask open questions, listen, validate, and allow silence. (5) Ask how they feel about seeing a mental health professional and restate that you care. (6) Share referral options and their benefits, and offer practical help (e.g. making the call from your office). (7) Expect hesitation: normalise therapy, address stigma, frame help-seeking as a strength, and raise it again later if needed. (8) Respect their decision unless there is risk of harm. Keep the door open and follow up. (9) If coaching can't help until the issue is addressed, suggest pausing coaching.
Example language (illustrative): "Over the last few sessions you've mentioned not sleeping, and that you've stopped seeing friends. I'm concerned about you. This sounds like something a therapist or your GP could help with more than coaching can. How would you feel about that?"
Watch for: the coachee feeling rejected. Make clear that coaching can continue alongside therapy if they are functioning and making progress (ICF 2018).

5. Handling problems

Palmer (2008) and the Danish papers give almost no guidance on difficulties. Unless a source is tagged, the responses below are my synthesis, built from the model's own tools.

5.1 The coaching–psychotherapy boundary as published

ICF (Hullinger & DiGirolamo 2018) [source: ICF 2018]: coaching focuses on vision, success, the present and the future, and aims at performance, learning or development, with generally well-functioning people. Therapy works with psychopathology and emotions, often including the past, and aims at healing deep-seated issues or recovering from trauma, with people who show some dysfunction or disorder. Coaches do not diagnose or treat. ICF uses an analogy: the coach is like an athletic trainer, the therapist like a sports-medicine doctor.
EMCC and AC (Global Code of Ethics, v4, Dec 2025, adopted by the AC as its own code) [source: Global Code of Ethics PDF; AC Code page]: coaching, mentoring and supervision is "not counselling, psychotherapy or medical intervention". Practitioners work within their competence and refer to a more suitably qualified practitioner where appropriate. They encourage ending the engagement if the client would be better served by a different form of help. Confidentiality is limited by law and by danger to self or others, and these limits are agreed at contracting. Supervision is required.
The model's authors. Palmer and co-authors present PRACTICE as usable in coaching, counselling, psychotherapy and stress management (Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012). They do not draw a boundary within the model itself. The papers contain no referral or screening guidance [source: Palmer 2008; Spaten et al. 2012, 2014]. The boundary is therefore set by your contract and role, not by the technique. [synthesis] If you are a psychotherapist using PRACTICE as a coach, the coaching contract governs. Don't slide into treatment without explicitly re-contracting, or referring on, and recording it. If you use PRACTICE inside a therapy contract as a problem-solving component, normal clinical assessment and risk procedures apply.

5.2 Concrete signs a coachee needs referral to clinical care

Published ICF indicators [source: ICF 2018, paraphrased]:

Symptoms that interfere with daily functioning (self-care, work, leisure) and have lasted for weeks.
No progress in coaching despite reasonable time, often because of unresolved past issues, repeatedly going over the same emotions, or self-defeating patterns.
Fixation on a past event, repeatedly presenting as a victim, or ongoing effects of trauma.
A cluster of changes: marked mood shifts, falling work performance, social withdrawal, changes in weight or hygiene, disturbed sleep.
Symptoms of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, PTSD, substance misuse, suicidal ideation or thought disorder.
The coach feels overly responsible, pressured, anxious or like a failure, or the coachee becomes overly dependent. Consult a supervisor or mental health professional.
Immediate danger to the coachee or others.

PRACTICE-specific signals [synthesis]:

At P, the issue is an emotional state ("I just feel hopeless") rather than a situation that can be changed.
Scaling stays at 0–2 across sessions with no exceptions found.
The miracle question brings up wishes not to wake up, or intense grief.
At A, the coachee can generate no options at all and shows global hopelessness.
At I, the coachee repeatedly fails to start despite tiny steps and high stated importance (possible depression or anxiety disorder).
At C, consequences are dominated by panic, intrusive memories or dissociation.
Goals involve weight or food restriction suggestive of an eating disorder.
Disclosures of abuse, domestic violence or safeguarding concerns about children or vulnerable adults.
Unusual beliefs, pressured speech or a markedly reduced need for sleep (possible psychosis or mania).
Alcohol or drug use affecting work or safety.
Memory or concentration problems suggesting a medical cause, which needs a GP or physician.

5.3 Risk or crisis in session

[source: ICF 2018, paraphrased] If there is imminent danger of harm to self or others, call emergency services and stay with the person until help arrives. Ask whether they have access to means of harm and arrange for these to be given to someone else for safekeeping. Agree who can be informed, and request a welfare check if needed. Listen without judging, arguing or threatening. For suicidal concerns, contact a crisis line. If the danger is unclear, consult a therapist. [synthesis for clinicians] Stop the PRACTICE sequence. Carry out a standard structured suicide/self-harm risk assessment within your clinical competence, or arrange one urgently. Make a safety plan with the person. Act within the confidentiality limits you contracted. Document and take it to supervision.

5.4 Stuck at P: the coachee keeps telling the problem story

[synthesis] Acknowledge it briefly, then summarise it in one sentence and ask the outcome question (4.5) or the miracle question (4.8). If they go back to the story, ask: "What would need to happen in this session for it to be useful?" If the story is about the past, keeps being repeated, and is emotionally raw, check against 5.2 (ICF names repeated emotional processing and fixation on the past as indicators).

5.5 "Yes, but" at A or C

[synthesis] Go back to strict separation: "Let's just list them; we'll judge them in a minute." At C, rate rather than debate. If every option scores low, ask what would make the best one score 2 points higher. If "yes, but" persists, explore ambivalence about the goal itself, and go back to R and check the goal is relevant to them and not imposed by an employer or sponsor.

5.6 Goals imposed by a sponsor (organisational coaching)

[synthesis; the contracting duty is from the Global Code of Ethics] Make the three-way contract explicit, covering what is reported to whom. At R, ask what the coachee wants from the goal the sponsor set. If there is no real buy-in, name it and renegotiate rather than pushing through PRACTICE mechanically.

5.7 Non-adherence: the plan wasn't carried out

[synthesis] Treat it as data at E, not as failure. Ask what got in the way, then make the first step smaller, rehearse it, or set an "if X, then Y" plan. Recheck confidence (4.15). If the plan is repeatedly not carried out, ask whether the chosen option was ever really theirs (go back to T), or check for low mood or anxiety (5.2).

5.8 Overwhelm and emotional flooding

[synthesis] Slow down and stop the sequence. Acknowledge the feeling, use a pause, ask what would help right now, and ground in the present (breathing, describing the room). Once settled, ask whether they want to continue, change topic or stop. If flooding involves trauma memories, dissociation or panic, don't use PRACTICE to process it. Follow 5.2 and 5.3. Coaching does not do trauma processing (ICF 2018 places trauma recovery in therapy).

5.9 Ruptures in the coaching relationship

[synthesis] Typical triggers: the model feels mechanical, the coach pushes for solutions too early, or a coach-generated option is rejected. Name it ("I may have rushed us to options"), ask what would be more helpful, and offer to go back a step. The ICF list treats the coach's own sense of over-responsibility or pressure as a cue for supervision.

5.10 Model-specific difficulties

Rigid stepping. The sequence is a guide. Move back to an earlier step when new information appears, e.g. a C finding that changes the goal [synthesis].
Problems outside the coachee's control. Mind Tools (secondary) notes the model works best when the problem is within the person's control. At R, reframe the goal around what the coachee can influence [source: Mind Tools; synthesis].
Low-insight or overly concrete clients. A Training Journal author (secondary) found it suits experienced coaches and clients who can see their situation from outside. Give more scaffolding with such clients: offer example options, use the written form [source: Training Journal; synthesis].
Scale confusion. The source uses both 0–10 and 1–10. Define one scale and stick to it [source: Palmer 2008].
Problem language feels negative. Use the presenting issue / preferred outcome framing (4.20) [uncertain on Palmer's exact version].
Coach and therapist in one person. Don't slide into therapy. Re-contract or refer, and avoid dual relationships, such as becoming the coachee's therapist without a fresh, explicit contract [synthesis, consistent with the Global Code of Ethics competence and boundary clauses].

Sources

Sources: