From an accident to a Delt@ report: organising the digital workflow and its evidence
Generating a file compatible with Delt@ addresses one part of accident management. The complete process starts earlier, with data collection and checking, and continues afterwards through receipts and preventive follow-up. Returns, corrections and additional communications may arise between those stages and need their own responsibilities and records.
When designing the digital workflow, distinguish three states: prepared, submitted and accepted within the relevant process. An XML file in a folder demonstrates that a file was generated; it does not, by itself, prove submission or establish the outcome of its processing.
Identify the communication required
Under the official accident-report instructions, the PAT covers accidents or relapses involving sick leave and at least one day’s absence, excluding the accident day. The general submission deadline is five working days from the accident or sick-leave date, as applicable.
The Order of 16 December 1987 distinguishes monthly reports of accidents without sick leave, submitted within the next month’s first five working days, and urgent notification within 24 hours. Urgent cases include specified fatal, serious or very serious workplace or on-duty travel accidents, and workplace accidents affecting more than four people.
Configure the applicable scenarios and check the competent territorial channel. Consult current Delt@ guidance for details and special situations. The Explore entry on accident reporting helps distinguish formal notification from the investigation that follows.
Collect data with clear ownership
Human resources may provide employment details; the supervisor, information about the activity; prevention, the event’s context; and care documentation, the relevant information within its scope. Decide who checks overall consistency and who is authorised to submit. Cover during holidays should be arranged before an accident occurs.
Keep the event date, sick-leave date and, where relevant, the date a formal determination became known as separate fields. Descriptions should be precise about the activity, location and known sequence. Avoid copying an initial explanation as though it were a definitive investigation conclusion.
Validate both content and format
Before export, check identifiers, workplace details, dates and classifications. Code tables and file specifications can change; the process needs an owner for reviewing and testing those updates. Passing a technical file validation does not demonstrate that every field accurately describes the accident or the employment circumstances.
A content review may reveal that an administrative assignment location was entered where a different location is required, or that the narrative conflicts with the selected code. A competent person should resolve these differences using official instructions and verified information, preserving the source of any correction.
Example: correct a report without losing history
Imagine a company submits a report and receives it back because information is incomplete. The case should retain the original submission, the return, the corrected version and the new submission. Overwriting the first file makes it impossible to explain what was sent at each point.
This example is illustrative. Its value lies in testing the exception workflow: who receives the notice, who obtains the missing information and who checks that the correction has been processed. The calendar must account for the deadline applicable to that return rather than tracking only the original submission date.
Retain receipts and continue preventive work
Link the receipt to the submitted content and processing status. Digital prevention evidence needs that relationship to support later review. Restrict access according to responsibilities and avoid distributing personal information through dashboards intended only for general progress tracking.
Meanwhile, the investigation should continue through its own workflow. Its conclusions may generate measures, training or assessment changes. Connect those activities with preventive and corrective action follow-up, so submitting the report is not treated as completion of the preventive work arising from the event.
Establish the software’s actual scope
When assessing a solution, request a demonstration of export, validation and correction using test data. Confirm which procedures are covered, which steps take place in the official channel and how receipts are stored. Include format updates among the questions about the software contract and support arrangements.
Explore Sabentis for organising prevention management through this complete scenario. The procurement criterion should be a clear, traceable journey with identifiable responsibilities and evidence at every stage, including the exceptions that arise after the first file has been prepared.
Checks before and after submitting an accident report
Test both a normal submission and a returned report using fictional data. The exception workflow often reveals who receives notices and where links between versions are lost, matters that a demonstration limited to generating a file cannot establish.
- Compare the site and identifiers in the case with the sources used to prepare the demonstration accident report.
- Check that a corrected date updates dependent follow-up tasks while retaining a record of the change made.
- Link a simulated return to its submission and assign responsibility for obtaining and validating the missing information.
- Confirm that a covering colleague can retrieve receipts and outstanding matters without using another person’s credentials.
- Open the case with a viewing profile and confirm that prepared files are distinguishable from evidenced submissions.
Frequently asked questions
Does a valid XML file prove that an accident report was submitted?
Not by itself. File validation and submission are different milestones. The case should identify the submission made through the relevant channel and its receipt, alongside the prepared file and any subsequent response affecting how the report is processed through the official workflow.
Should the original file be edited when a report is returned?
Retain the submitted version and prepare the correction so that it remains linked to the original. Identify the reason and the response received. This history makes it easier to explain what was initially submitted and what information changed in the next submission.
Can one calendar cover every accident communication?
It should not be configured on that assumption. PAT reports, lists of accidents without sick leave and urgent communications have their own circumstances. Determine the relevant procedure and official reference before calculating reminders, including the territorial channel and any case-specific details.
What should a supplier explain about Delt@ compatibility?
Ask whether the software prepares data, generates files or participates in another part of the process. Also test corrections and receipt retrieval. The word compatible does not establish automatic submission or demonstrate that every relevant procedure is covered by the offered solution.
Legislation and sources consulted
- Delt@: accident report instructions: Spain: official instructions for determining and completing the occupational accident report.
- Order of 16 December 1987: Spain: notification forms and processing rules, to be consulted together with current instructions for the channel used.
Sources consulted on 6 October 2026. The practical checklist proposes management checks; its application should reflect each organisation’s scope.
