Epic’s Infection Prevention Module Needs More TLC Than Others, KLAS Finds

Why It Matters

These findings highlight a critical gap between technology promises and frontline clinician needs, underscoring the risk of adopting an all‑Epic strategy without adequate investment. For health systems, understanding Buggy’s limitations and the required internal commitment can prevent costly implementation failures and ensure patient safety through effective infection control reporting.

Summary

The February 2026 KLAS report reveals that Epic’s infection prevention module, Buggy, lags behind all other Epic inpatient products with an overall performance score of 80.6, and shows a stark divide between IT (91.4) and infection preventionist (73.9) satisfaction. Key pain points include cumbersome custom reporting, limited out‑of‑the‑box analytics, slow support, and a lack of clinician input in product development, leading many hospitals to run best‑of‑breed tools like VigiLanz or Wolters Kluwer alongside or instead of Buggy. Success with Buggy requires extensive internal resources, dedicated analysts, strong cross‑team collaboration, and a robust training plan, as one‑third of organizations took over a year to achieve stable workflows. The report advises early involvement of infection prevention leaders and realistic budgeting for customization and ongoing maintenance.