According to a new nation-wide study conducted in the US, very few of the country's hospitals have electronic record systems installed. Most health care institutions still keep all their sensitive medical data on paper files, stored in archives in the basement of the buildings. A measly 2 percent of them have electronic records, which means that the vast majority (98 percent) of these institutions still operate in very much the same way they did decades ago.

“The data collectively show we are at a very early stage in adoption, a very low stage compared to other countries,” Harvard University researcher Dr. David Blumenthal, who has been only last week appointed to run President Obama's $19-billion effort of implementing more technology in the country's hospitals, explains. Paper documents make it very difficult to find relevant information under pressure, plus, they are subjected to deterioration over time.

Electronic archives featuring powerful encryptions for security and back-up drives in case of emergency could do a much better job at calling up all relevant data as soon as physicians or nurses need them. In addition, this type of record storage is a central piece of Obama's health care system overhaul project, as the President aims to drastically cut the costs associated with operating such large archives around the country.

“Right now, very few hospitals in America have a comprehensive electronic health record. Only about 1 in 10 meet the definition of a basic electronic health record,” Harvard School of Public Health expert Dr. Ashish Jha, who has collaborated with Blumenthal for the recent study that has included data collected in 2008 from more than 3,000 hospitals, told during a briefing on Wednesday. “It would be wrong to see this as a technology that can be adopted solely on its own. It needs to be adopted in an environment that supports it,” Blumenthal said, stressing that a system-wide reform was in order.