The state board that oversees physicians approved a measure Tuesday aimed at tightening regulations governing doctors and making information in disciplinary cases more available to the public.

One key change proposed by the state Board of Medical Examiners would allow the public to find out when the board files an official complaint against a doctor and what action, if any, is taken by the board as a case progresses through the disciplinary process.

Currently, some steps in the process -- including the official complaint the board initially files against a doctor -- are not made public by the medical board.

The medical board voted 5-0 for the changes, which wouldn't go into effect until passed by the General Assembly. The board is looking for a legislator to sponsor the changes, said Rick Wilson, attorney for the board.

The medical board drafted the changes in the wake of two highly publicized cases last year in which doctors were accused of misconduct. One case involved Hilton Head Island cardiologist Dr. James D. Johnston, whose license has been suspended pending his treatment at an alcohol rehabilitation center. Another involved a Columbia doctor, James Shortt, whose license was suspended after the death of one of his patients who had been injected with hydrogen peroxide.

In both cases, many aspects of disciplinary actions have been kept secret.

Under existing rules, the medical board releases no information about doctor discipline cases until it issues an order suspending a doctor's license -- after an investigation has been completed. The changes would allow the board to tell the public about the existence of a case at the same time an investigation begins.

While the board would announce on its Web site that an investigation has begun, no details about the suspected misconduct would be released until the board reaches a final decision on the case.

In the past, some details about misconduct have been made public early in the disciplinary process.

Other groups also are working on ways to make the state's process for disciplining doctors more open.

The S.C. Press Association is putting together legislation that would require information about any medical professional suspected of misconduct to be made public when charges are deemed to have merit, said Bill Rogers, the association's executive director. He said the press association, like the medical board, is seeking legislators to sponsor the bill, and several lawmakers had shown support.

"We think it's important that the disciplinary process for doctors be open," Rogers said.

Later this month, the state Supreme Court will consider a case that could have an impact on information that can be released in disciplinary cases against doctors. In the case, scheduled to be argued on March 15, The Island Packet will argue that a judge with the Administrative Law Court in Columbia erred when he issued a gag order and sealed all records in the Board of Medical Examiner's case against Johnston.

The proposed changes in regulations approved by the medical board Tuesday weren't limited to the issue of public access to disciplinary cases. Other changes include:

Creating a process for doctors to follow if they want to challenge a temporary suspension issued when the board believes patients are endangered as a result of problems such as alcohol abuse. The doctor would have 24 hours to appeal a suspension to the Administrative Law Court, which then would have 72 hours to hear the case. In the interim, the suspension would be posted on the state's Web site.

Adding a nonmedical member to the medical board, which currently has 10 members. The board already has one lay member. The two lay members would be required to have at least bachelor's degrees. There no such requirement now.

Allowing the board to require doctors to undergo criminal background checks when they first apply for licenses to practice in the state and if they become involved in disciplinary hearings. The medical board currently relies on doctors to honestly answer questions about their criminal history on license applications.

Requiring doctors who want to act as expert witnesses to be without any public reprimands during the previous five years from any medical group, such as another state's medical board or a hospital where they practiced.

"We don't want anybody with a public reprimand coming here and giving testimony on how we should be practicing medicine here," said board president Dr. Satish Prabhu.

The board currently has no rules about reprimands for doctors who act as expert witnesses.

Only five members of the medical board participated in Tuesday's meeting. Two spots on the 10-member board are vacant and three members were absent.