SOAP vs DAP vs BIRP Notes: Which Format Should You Use?
What Are SOAP, DAP, and BIRP Notes?
SOAP, DAP, and BIRP are three structured progress note formats used by mental health professionals to document therapy sessions. Each format organizes clinical information into distinct sections, but they differ in how they categorize that information and what they emphasize.
SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) is the most widely used format across all healthcare disciplines. It separates the client's self-report from the clinician's observations before moving to clinical interpretation and treatment planning.
DAP (Data, Assessment, Plan) consolidates the client's report and the clinician's observations into a single Data section, followed by the clinician's assessment and plan. It is essentially a streamlined version of SOAP.
BIRP (Behavior, Intervention, Response, Plan) leads with observable behavior, then documents the specific interventions used, the client's response to those interventions, and the plan. It places the strongest emphasis on the intervention-response link.
All three formats, when used correctly, satisfy the fundamental requirements of clinical documentation: they record what the client presented, what the clinician did, what the clinical picture looks like, and what happens next. The differences lie in organization and emphasis — and those differences matter depending on your clinical setting, payer requirements, and documentation goals.
When You Need It
This comparison guide is useful when:
- You are choosing a note format for a new private practice or group practice
- Your agency is evaluating whether to change its documentation format
- You are transitioning between clinical settings that use different formats
- You are training supervisees or interns on documentation and want to present options
- You want to understand why a particular format was chosen for your setting
Key Components: Side-by-Side Comparison
| Element | SOAP | DAP | BIRP |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sections | 4: Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan | 3: Data, Assessment, Plan | 4: Behavior, Intervention, Response, Plan |
| Client's self-report | Subjective section (standalone) | Combined in Data section | Part of Behavior section |
| Clinician's observations | Objective section (standalone) | Combined in Data section | Part of Behavior section |
| Interventions used | Embedded in Objective section | Embedded in Data section | Standalone Intervention section |
| Clinical interpretation | Assessment section | Assessment section | Implicit across Response section |
| Client's response to treatment | Embedded in Assessment | Embedded in Assessment | Standalone Response section |
| Treatment planning | Plan section | Plan section | Plan section |
| Emphasis | Separating client report from clinician observation | Efficiency and simplicity | Intervention-response linkage |
| Origin | Medical settings (Dr. Lawrence Weed, 1960s) | Adapted from SOAP for counseling | Community mental health settings |
| Best for | Medical model settings, multidisciplinary teams | Private practice, school counseling | Community mental health, substance use treatment |
Pros and Cons
SOAP Notes
- Pros: Universally recognized across healthcare disciplines; clear separation of subjective and objective data; familiar to physicians, psychiatrists, and insurance reviewers; strong legal defensibility due to its widespread use
- Cons: Can feel redundant for psychotherapy (the Objective section can be thin when no physical exam or lab work is involved); requires distinguishing between subjective and objective — a distinction that is sometimes unclear in therapy
DAP Notes
- Pros: Simpler three-section structure reduces redundancy; faster to write; eliminates the sometimes-artificial line between Subjective and Objective in therapy settings; effective for clinicians who find SOAP's four sections cumbersome
- Cons: Less universally recognized outside of behavioral health; the combined Data section can become a disorganized list if not written carefully; may not satisfy reviewers who expect clear separation of client report and clinician observation
BIRP Notes
- Pros: Dedicated Intervention section forces documentation of specific clinical techniques; Response section captures treatment effectiveness; strong format for demonstrating medical necessity and active treatment; well-suited for Medicaid and managed care documentation requirements
- Cons: Less intuitive for clinicians trained in the medical model; the Behavior section can overlap with the Response section if not carefully delineated; less familiar to providers outside behavioral health; no dedicated Assessment section for formal clinical interpretation
Setting Considerations
Private practice: DAP or SOAP are the most common choices. DAP is efficient and well-suited for solo practitioners managing their own documentation. SOAP is preferable if you frequently coordinate care with medical providers who expect the SOAP format.
Community mental health / county agencies: BIRP is the dominant format in many community mental health centers, especially those serving Medicaid populations. The intervention-response structure aligns well with utilization review requirements that demand evidence of active treatment.
Hospital / medical settings: SOAP is the standard. If you are embedded in a hospital, medical clinic, or integrated care setting, SOAP notes ensure your documentation is compatible with the broader medical record.
School-based settings: DAP is commonly used due to its simplicity. School counselors and school-based therapists often prefer DAP because it is quick to write between back-to-back sessions.
Substance use treatment: BIRP is frequently used in substance use treatment programs, particularly those funded through state or federal grants that require documentation of specific evidence-based interventions and client response.
Same Session, Three Formats
The following examples document the same therapy session — a 50-minute individual CBT session with a client experiencing generalized anxiety — in all three formats.
SOAP Format — GAD Session
Client: T.K. | Date: 03/12/2026 | Session: #5 (50 min) | Modality: Individual | CPT: 90837
S — Subjective: Client reports increased worry over the past week related to an upcoming performance review at work. States, "I've been catastrophizing about getting fired even though my manager said my work is good." Reports difficulty sleeping (waking at 3 AM with racing thoughts on 4 of 7 nights). Denies using any coping strategies between sessions. Reports taking escitalopram 10mg as prescribed with no side effects.
O — Objective: Client arrived on time, appropriately dressed. Affect was anxious — fidgeting with hands, rapid speech at session start. Eye contact was intermittent. GAD-7 score: 14 (moderate), unchanged from last session. Thought process was linear but marked by future-oriented worry themes. Cognitive restructuring was conducted in session targeting the catastrophic thought "I'm going to get fired." Clinician introduced worry time scheduling as a containment strategy. Client practiced the technique in session with guidance.
A — Assessment: GAD symptoms remain at moderate severity (GAD-7: 14) with no improvement from previous session. Client has not implemented between-session coping strategies, which likely contributes to stagnation. In-session cognitive restructuring was productive — client identified the probability overestimation distortion and generated the alternative thought "My manager has given me positive feedback; being fired is unlikely." However, client's pattern of not practicing skills between sessions is a barrier to progress. Current diagnosis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (F41.1). Risk: Client denied suicidal and homicidal ideation; no acute safety concerns. Prognosis: Fair — contingent on between-session skill practice.
P — Plan:
- Continue weekly individual therapy (CBT for GAD)
- Client to implement worry time scheduling daily (15 minutes at 7 PM)
- Client to complete thought record for at least 2 worry episodes this week
- Discuss barriers to homework completion at the start of next session
- Continue escitalopram 10mg as prescribed
- Next session: 03/19/2026 at 11:00 AM
This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.
DAP Format — GAD Session (Same Session)
Client: T.K. | Date: 03/12/2026 | Session: #5 (50 min) | Modality: Individual | CPT: 90837
D — Data: Client reports increased worry related to an upcoming performance review, stating, "I've been catastrophizing about getting fired even though my manager said my work is good." Reports sleep disruption (waking at 3 AM with racing thoughts, 4 of 7 nights). Has not practiced coping strategies between sessions. Taking escitalopram 10mg as prescribed. Client presented with anxious affect — hand fidgeting, rapid speech at session start, intermittent eye contact. GAD-7 administered: score 14 (moderate), unchanged from session #4. Cognitive restructuring conducted targeting catastrophic thought "I'm going to get fired." Client identified the distortion (probability overestimation) and generated the alternative thought: "My manager has given me positive feedback; being fired is unlikely." Worry time scheduling introduced as a containment strategy and practiced in session.
A — Assessment: GAD symptoms remain at moderate severity with no measurable improvement (GAD-7: 14, stable). Client is responsive to in-session interventions — successfully completed cognitive restructuring with appropriate identification of the distortion. However, lack of between-session practice is a significant barrier to symptom reduction. Treatment plan remains appropriate but effectiveness is limited by homework non-adherence. Client denied SI/HI; no acute safety concerns. Diagnosis: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (F41.1). Prognosis: Fair, contingent on skill generalization outside of session.
P — Plan:
- Continue weekly CBT; address homework barriers at start of next session
- Implement worry time scheduling daily (15 min at 7 PM)
- Complete thought record for at least 2 worry episodes
- Continue escitalopram 10mg
- Next session: 03/19/2026 at 11:00 AM
This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.
BIRP Format — GAD Session (Same Session)
Client: T.K. | Date: 03/12/2026 | Session: #5 (50 min) | Modality: Individual | CPT: 90837
B — Behavior: Client presented with anxious affect including hand fidgeting, rapid speech, and intermittent eye contact. GAD-7 score: 14 (moderate), unchanged from previous session. Client reports increased worry about an upcoming work performance review, catastrophizing about being fired despite positive feedback from manager. Reports sleep disturbance — waking at 3 AM with racing thoughts on 4 of 7 nights. Client did not complete between-session coping practice as assigned. Medication adherence maintained (escitalopram 10mg).
I — Intervention: Administered GAD-7 to track symptom severity. Conducted cognitive restructuring using Socratic questioning to examine the catastrophic thought "I'm going to get fired," guiding the client to evaluate the evidence for and against this belief. Introduced worry time scheduling as a cognitive-behavioral containment strategy — provided psychoeducation on the rationale (delaying worry reduces its frequency and intensity over time) and guided the client through an in-session practice of the technique. Explored barriers to between-session homework completion, identifying perfectionism and avoidance as contributing factors.
R — Response: Client engaged actively in cognitive restructuring. Identified the probability overestimation distortion with minimal prompting and generated the alternative thought: "My manager has given me positive feedback; being fired is unlikely." Reported a reduction in anxiety from 7/10 to 4/10 after completing the exercise in session. During worry time practice, client initially had difficulty confining worry to the designated period but was able to redirect with clinician guidance. Client acknowledged that homework non-completion was related to "not wanting to do it wrong" and agreed this was a pattern worth addressing. Client denied suicidal and homicidal ideation; no safety concerns identified.
P — Plan:
- Continue weekly individual therapy (CBT for GAD)
- Client to implement worry time scheduling daily (15 min at 7 PM) — written instructions provided
- Complete thought record for at least 2 worry episodes; clinician clarified that imperfect thought records are clinically useful
- Address perfectionism as a barrier to skill practice in upcoming sessions
- Continue escitalopram 10mg as prescribed
- Next session: 03/19/2026 at 11:00 AM
This is a sample for educational purposes only — not real patient data.
How to Choose the Right Format Step by Step
Step 1: Check your employer or agency requirements. Many settings mandate a specific format. If your agency uses BIRP notes, that is the format you use — the decision is made. Start here before considering personal preference.
Step 2: Identify your primary payer mix. If you bill primarily to Medicaid or state-funded programs, BIRP notes may best satisfy utilization review requirements. If you work in a medical or integrated care setting, SOAP is the safest choice. For private-pay or commercial insurance, any format works.
Step 3: Consider your clinical population. If you work with clients with serious mental illness or substance use disorders where demonstrating active intervention is critical, BIRP's intervention-response structure is advantageous. If your practice is primarily outpatient psychotherapy, SOAP or DAP will serve you well.
Step 4: Assess your documentation workflow. If you have limited time between sessions, DAP's three-section structure is the most efficient. If you want a format that forces thorough documentation, BIRP or SOAP's four sections provide more structure.
Step 5: Try all three on the same session. Before committing, write one session note in each format. Notice which one feels most natural and which one produces the clearest clinical record. The best format is the one you will use consistently and well.
Common Mistakes
-
Choosing a format based on personal preference alone. Your note format should match your setting, payer requirements, and clinical population — not just what you learned in graduate school. A BIRP note in a hospital setting or a SOAP note in a county mental health agency may create friction with reviewers who expect a different format.
-
Mixing elements between formats. If you are writing a DAP note, do not add a separate Objective section. If you are writing SOAP, do not embed a standalone Intervention section. Hybrid notes confuse reviewers and undermine the structure that makes each format useful.
-
Assuming one format is clinically superior. All three formats can produce excellent or poor documentation. A well-written DAP note is clinically stronger than a poorly written SOAP note. Focus on writing quality within your chosen format rather than debating which format is best.
-
Not adapting to your setting when you change jobs. Moving from a private practice (DAP) to a community mental health center (BIRP) requires learning a new format, not insisting on your old one. Budget time to learn the new format's conventions and review examples from your new setting.
-
Omitting required elements because the format doesn't have a dedicated section. BIRP notes do not have an Assessment section, but you still need to convey clinical judgment. DAP notes do not separate subjective from objective, but the data should still be organized clearly. Every format requires risk assessment documentation regardless of whether it has a labeled section for it.
Writing a progress note right now?
My Clinical Writer helps you generate progress notes from your session details in under 60 seconds.
Try My Clinical Writer Free →myclinicalwriter.ai
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Templates
External Resources
Authoritative references and tools related to this documentation type.
Stop spending hours on documentation
My Clinical Writer uses AI to help you draft clinical notes, treatment plans, and reports in minutes — not hours.
Get Started at myclinicalwriter.ai →