Epic’s Infection Prevention Module Needs More TLC Than Others, KLAS Finds
•February 6, 2026
0
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.
Epic’s Infection Prevention Module Needs More TLC Than Others, KLAS Finds
Epic’s infection prevention module trails other inpatient products in KLAS report
Customer satisfaction with Epic’s infection prevention module trails every other inpatient product in the vendor’s portfolio, earning an overall performance score of 80.6 on KLAS Research’s 100‑point scale — more than seven points below the next‑lowest Epic inpatient solution.
The February 2026 KLAS report, which surveyed 23 organizations and included supplemental evaluations from 19 of them, reveals a sharp divide between how IT leaders and infection preventionists experience the product. IT personnel gave Bugsy a 91.4 performance score, while infection preventionists rated it 73.9.
The gap points to a deeper organizational challenge: the clinicians who depend on the tool daily feel excluded from both purchasing decisions and product development conversations. “Most interviewed infection preventionists describe a markedly different experience” from their IT counterparts, the report states, citing slower support response times, limited product knowledge among Epic’s support staff, and a desire for greater influence over the Bugsy roadmap.
Reporting Remains a Heavy Lift
Custom reporting emerged as the most‑requested area for improvement and the largest pain point across the surveyed customer base. Half of respondents said self‑service reporting required a significant lift, meaning the functionality was not available out of the box. Data visualizations and analytics presented a similar challenge, with 25 % of respondents reporting a significant build effort and another 69 % describing a small lift.
To compensate for these gaps, multiple organizations have opted to keep a best‑of‑breed solution running alongside or instead of Bugsy. VigiLanz’s Infection Control Monitor, the most frequently paired tool, scored 90.8 overall across all EHR users and 87.9 among Epic‑only customers. Wolters Kluwer’s Sentri7 Infection Prevention platform, the 2026 Best in KLAS winner, scored 93.5 overall. Respondents did acknowledge recent progress on NHSN reporting, noting that Epic has focused proactively on that area over the past several years.
One‑Third of Organizations Took Over a Year to Succeed
Achieving stable, efficient workflows with Bugsy takes considerable time and internal investment, according to the report. Roughly one‑third of respondents said it took more than 12 months to reach a successful state, and one organization reported that after more than five years live on the platform, it had still not reached that milestone. The quality of the Bugsy experience appears closely tied to the strength of an organization’s internal build team. Respondents who invested heavily in dedicated analysts and maintained regular meeting cadences with IT and Bugsy teams reported better outcomes. Training remains a consistent weak spot even among the most established users, with lower satisfaction scores persisting across the board. Integration within the Epic ecosystem — the primary reason most organizations adopt Bugsy — proved more complex than anticipated. While some EHR data connections such as lab results were ready at go‑live, nearly half of respondents said integration to the patient chart was not fully available out of the box.
Best‑of‑Breed Alternatives Outperform
Among the competitive landscape, BD’s HealthSight Infection Advisor saw significant satisfaction declines over the past year, with respondents citing staff turnover, diminished responsiveness, and limited innovation. VigiLanz and Wolters Kluwer continue to earn high marks from infection preventionists, though both sets of users expressed a desire for tighter integration with Epic’s EHR. Organizations that migrated to Bugsy from VigiLanz experienced a notable drop in satisfaction, while those coming from BD saw a comparable decline. The change‑in‑satisfaction data reinforces what many infection preventionists have communicated throughout the report: the move to Bugsy often comes at a functional cost that organizations should weigh carefully.
Take it Away
-
Involve infection prevention leaders early in the decision‑making process, and ensure analysts have deep workflow knowledge before making build decisions.
-
Plan for dedicated resources including a Bugsy‑focused analyst, additional infection preventionists, and FTEs to fill reporting and workflow gaps.
-
Map organizational reporting requirements up front, including NHSN, communicable‑disease, and public reporting needs.
-
Expect significant customization and ongoing maintenance; Bugsy is not an out‑of‑the‑box solution.
-
Build strong collaboration with lab and Beaker teams, especially for microbiology‑driven functionality.
-
Develop a thorough training plan, particularly for teams unfamiliar with Epic or EHR capabilities.
-
Maintain a consistent meeting cadence with IT and Bugsy teams to review updates and optimize workflows.
The KLAS findings suggest that health systems weighing an all‑Epic strategy should conduct a clear‑eyed assessment of the internal investment Bugsy demands. As one finding from the report makes plain: the organizations that succeed with Bugsy are those that treat it as a long‑term build project requiring dedicated expertise, sustained executive attention, and the active participation of the infection preventionists who will use it every day.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...