Our investigation found that he had not been removed in line with the legislation about this, as he had not been given a warning about possible removal. We, therefore, upheld the complaint but made no recommendations because the practice had already taken action that we considered appropriate. They had apologised, acknowledged that he should have received a warning, explained that they had taken action to ensure such an omission would not recur, and told him that, although he had now registered elsewhere, he could return to the practice if he wished.
Related reading
View Decision Report 201204481 as a PDF (10.99 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018