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. This discrepancy, revealed in a February 2026 KLAS report, highlights a significant gap in user experience and raises questions about the effectiveness of a one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare technology.
A Disconnect Between IT and Infection Control
Table of Contents
A new report reveals a stark contrast in how IT staff and infection preventionists perceive Epic’s Bugsy module.
- IT personnel rated Bugsy at 91.4, while infection preventionists gave it a score of 73.9.
- Custom reporting is a major pain point, requiring significant effort for half of respondents.
- Organizations often need over a year—and substantial internal resources—to achieve stable workflows.
- Best-of-breed alternatives consistently outperform Bugsy in user satisfaction.
- Successful implementation hinges on dedicated expertise and active participation from infection preventionists.
The KLAS report, which surveyed 23 organizations and included supplemental evaluations from 19, exposes a fundamental disconnect. While IT leaders generally view Epic’s Bugsy favorably—assigning it a performance score of 91.4—infection preventionists, the clinicians who rely on the tool daily, rate it a considerably lower 73.9. This isn’t just a matter of differing opinions; it points to a deeper organizational challenge where frontline staff feel excluded from crucial decisions.
“Most interviewed infection preventionists describe a markedly different experience” from their IT counterparts, the report states. They cite slower support response times, limited product knowledge among Epic’s support staff, and a frustrating lack of influence over the product’s development roadmap.
Reporting: A Significant Hurdle
Custom reporting emerged as the most significant area for improvement and the biggest headache for users. Half of those surveyed said generating self-service reports required a “significant lift,” meaning the functionality wasn’t readily available. Data visualizations and analytics presented similar challenges, with 25% reporting a substantial build effort and another 69% describing a smaller, but still noticeable, amount of work required.
To bridge these gaps, many organizations are opting to supplement—or even replace—Bugsy with specialized solutions. VigiLanz’s Infection Control Monitor, the most frequently paired tool, scored 90.8 overall among all EHR users and 87.9 specifically among Epic customers. Wolters Kluwer’s Sentri7 Infection Prevention platform, recognized as the 2026 Best in KLAS, achieved an impressive overall score of 93.5. While respondents acknowledged recent improvements in reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), they noted Epic’s proactive focus on this area has been a more recent development.
Time and Resources: A Substantial Investment
Achieving stable, efficient workflows with Bugsy isn’t a quick process. The report indicates that roughly one-third of respondents needed more than 12 months to reach a successful state, and one organization reported still struggling after more than five years. The quality of the Bugsy experience appears directly tied to the strength of an organization’s internal build team. Those who invested heavily in dedicated analysts and maintained regular communication with IT and Bugsy teams reported better outcomes.
Even among established users, training remains a consistent weak point, with lower satisfaction scores persisting across the board. Integration within the Epic ecosystem—the primary reason most organizations choose Bugsy—proved more complex than anticipated. While some EHR data connections, such as lab results, were available at go-live, nearly half of respondents said integration with the patient chart wasn’t fully functional out of the box.
Alternatives Offer Stronger Performance
In the competitive landscape, BD’s HealthSight Infection Advisor experienced a decline in satisfaction over the past year, with respondents citing staff turnover, slower response times, and a perceived lack of innovation. VigiLanz and Wolters Kluwer continue to receive high marks from infection preventionists, though users of both platforms expressed a desire for tighter integration with Epic’s EHR. Interestingly, organizations that switched to Bugsy from VigiLanz reported a noticeable drop in satisfaction, while those migrating from BD experienced a comparable decline. This data reinforces a recurring theme throughout the report: moving to Bugsy often comes at a functional cost that organizations should carefully consider.
The KLAS findings suggest that health systems considering an all-Epic strategy should conduct a thorough assessment of the internal investment Bugsy demands. As the report plainly states, organizations that succeed with Bugsy treat it as a long-term build project requiring dedicated expertise, sustained executive attention, and—most importantly—the active participation of the infection preventionists who will use it every day.
