Software for in-house and shared prevention services: roles, companies and joint management in Spain
A prevention service supporting several entities needs to share knowledge and resources without losing each company’s identity. Assessments, actions and decisions must remain linked to the relevant organisation even when a common technical team manages them.
Choosing software for an in-house or shared prevention service in Spain requires testing that structure in a realistic operation. The entry on prevention services explains the arrangements. This article focuses on digital criteria that support their management.
Represent the prevention organisation correctly
Article 21 of the Regulations for Prevention Services (in Spanish) governs shared services and their treatment as in-house services of the participating companies. Software configuration should reflect the arrangement and scope actually agreed, rather than infer them solely from common group ownership.
Map legal entities, sites, activities, the technical team and internal owners. Add the disciplines and functions assigned to each resource. This prevents confusion between a corporate structure and an operational organisation that may be different.
Separate records while sharing methods
The system should make it possible to establish which information belongs to each company and who may access it. Sharing an assessment method does not require every supervisor to see every case. Distinguish common libraries, company-specific records and aggregated views.
- Entities and sites with stable identifiers.
- Shared templates with version control.
- Assessments and actions linked to their company and operation.
- Permissions based on role and responsibility.
- Aggregate reports with visible inclusion criteria.
During a demonstration, ask a user from one company to search for another company’s records. Test exports and notifications too. Separation must hold across every route to information.
Organise a shared team’s work
A technical calendar can show visits, assessments, reviews and commitments. To be useful, it should distinguish planned activity from delivered results and subsequent action. A completed visit may create measures that still require decisions by the company being supported.
Assign both a technical owner and an operational implementation owner. When a professional is replaced, the new contact should understand the case status, decisions and next steps. Individual accounts help preserve an intelligible history.
An example involving two group companies
In a fictional case, a prevention team supports a factory and a distribution company. Both use a common follow-up method, while their risks, schedules and budget decisions differ. The professional records one action in the factory and another in the warehouse; each supervisor receives only the action within their remit.
The service director needs a combined view of workload and barriers. Each company’s management needs visibility of its own responsibilities and outstanding resources. The software should support both views without making a combined dashboard a route to unrestricted personal records.
Protect health data and sensitive cases
Health data protection requires role-appropriate access. Separate information needed to implement an adjustment from clinical content a supervisor should not consult. Review permissions when someone changes entity, site or responsibility.
Also test a company leaving the arrangement or a change of provider. Clarify which documents each entity can recover, how necessary history is preserved and which access is removed. These decisions should align with applicable agreements and obligations.
Give particular attention to records created before organisational changes. Moving a site between reporting structures should not silently rewrite the context in which an assessment or decision was made. Ask how the platform distinguishes current ownership from historical responsibility and verify the answer with a sample record.
Compare software through scenarios, not just modules
Prepare five tests: create an entity, assign a professional to several sites, share a template, complete an action and produce a company-limited report. Add an organisational change to check that historical records preserve their original context.
For each scenario, involve someone who performs the work and someone who receives the result. They may need different views of the same process. Record unresolved assumptions so that configuration decisions are not left to the last stage of implementation.
The guide to multi-site management develops the geographical structure, while preparing statutory prevention audits helps review evidence. Bring these scenarios to a Sabentis demonstration and confirm which scope and configuration fit the prevention service you need to manage.
Checklist for reviewing the prevention service’s capacity
Beyond permissions and case records, examine whether the digital structure reveals the prevention service’s real workload. This checklist connects recorded activity with the resources and commitments of the companies receiving the service.
- Compare companies active in the software with the service’s current scope and identify entities included only through an administrative error.
- Review a high-demand week and identify visits, reports or verification work competing for the same professional’s available time.
- Separate completed technical work from measures the company must implement, avoiding confusion between service workload and operational barriers.
- Simulate a professional’s absence and check that their replacement retains the necessary discipline, access scope and case context.
- Prepare a company-specific view identifying activities, results and outstanding work without including confidential information from other participating entities.
Frequently asked questions
Do all companies in a group automatically form a shared prevention service?
No. The arrangement must be established and operate under the applicable requirements; common ownership or software is insufficient. Article 21 of the Regulations for Prevention Services governs this model. Configure the platform around the actual agreement and scope, rather than the corporate organisation chart alone.
Does software replace the prevention service’s human resources?
No. Recording tasks or producing reports does not replace the technical capacity needed to perform the activities. Use information to identify overload, priorities and unattended commitments. Decisions about resources and organisation should reflect the service required and the obligations applicable to the particular arrangement.
How can a shared library avoid changing previously issued assessments?
Distinguish working templates from the documents and criteria used in historical cases. When updating the library, define which new assignments adopt the version and which existing cases need review. Check that changing common wording does not silently rewrite earlier decisions belonging to several different companies.
What must be clear when a company leaves the shared service?
Identify its records, outstanding activities and the person responsible for continuity. Agree delivery, access and retention under the applicable framework. Verify complete recovery before removing permissions, keeping other companies’ documents and information covered by clinical confidentiality separate throughout the transition and subsequent handling of records.
Legislation and consulted sources
- Royal Decree 39/1997, articles 15 and 21. Spain: organisation, scope and resources of in-house and shared prevention services. Spanish text.
- Law 31/1995, articles 22 and 31. Spain: health surveillance confidentiality and prevention service functions, supporting access and responsibility boundaries. Spanish text.
Sources consulted on 6 October 2026.
