iSTAT PT Plus transition

What is everyone doing about the PTplus results in the EMR?  Are you creating a new test or will the "new" INR go to the same spot in Epic, etc., as the current INR?  Thanks!

@Deb we were instructed to have our middleware updated to DE v2.11 [PT Plus Patch] and have a new Test Code built for EPIC. 

How did you get elevated INR results for this comparisons?  Thank you.

I also would like to know how people have been able to get elevated INR results for comparisons. PLEASE HELP if you have any ideas. I am running into great variability between the PT/INR and the PTPLUS whenever i try to manipulate a sample for elevated INR. I have had no response to a mass email for anyone on medication and waiting for a floor to call when they have a patient on medication is very painful.
Precision looks great. Samples via venipuncture or capillary collection on regular people all look good. I am just trying to figure out how to get some elevated INR results for this whole blood validation.

At the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview, we had to upgrade our DE to v2.11 also. We are not going to have to generate a new test code as our middleware sends out the same, results process and collection was the same, and location in EPIC would be the same. We will just make sure we have used up our PT/INR cartridges before starting the PTPLUS cartridges (is what i was advised should be the process).

I know this thread started in April but we have just started our validation for the PT plus and have noted a big difference in the PT WBT between the PT+ and the old iSTAT PT cartridges, the old being much higher.  We monitor PT results but do not report them visibly in the chart.  So far comparison of the INR is looking good and similar to the TOP in the lab for the couple of ones so far sent down.  Anyone have anymore data to share or concerns?  

Our Method Comparison showed a definite negative bias with the PT Plus cartridge but the INR's were on the mark.  As noted in earlier comments, PT will vary between instruments that is why we have the INR, and some places just report the INR.  At my institution we report both the INR and the PT in seconds, and I was very concerned about what we would do.  The correlation for the INR was 0.97, but Abbott was unable to do a regression for the PT.  We went to EP Evaluator and used the COAG comparison function that allowed us to enter the ISI and Patient Normal PT (given to us from Abbott) for each method which allowed for the differences. The correlation was 0.97. Our Medical Director approved it, noting that medical decisions are based on INR. 

We were not able to validate the Reportable Range at the upper end, so we adjusted the settings in DE so it will only report out our verified range.