CHHIChinedozi Hospitals & Healthcare International

Impact projection

Argue with the arithmetic.

This is a model, not a forecast. Every input below is an assumption with a stated default, and you can move all of them — including the ones that make CHHI look worse. The claim being made is structural: retention dominates training volume, and it is not close.

Assumptions

Hubs run cohorts in parallel. Two a year is the pace one fully staffed hub sustains.
Physicians, nurses, midwives and community health workers trained together as one deployable unit.
The CHHI assumption: trained locally, deployed home, paid on time, equipped, supervised, not alone.
The comparison line: the same graduates, trained conventionally, freely recruited abroad.
Retirement, career change, later emigration, illness. Applied to everyone already deployed.
Primary-care encounters, antenatal visits, chronic follow-up and outreach days combined.
Formed alongside the clinical cohort, not bolted on afterwards.
The catchment the hubs are commissioned to cover. Used only for the density figure.
Registers, referral letters, stock counts, claim forms, duplicated intake.
Scheduling, records, follow-up, billing and reporting handled by the platform instead of by hand.
Years from the first cohort. Clinical pipelines do not pay off inside one budget cycle.
570clinicians practising in their home region in 2035
335more than the comparison scenario retains
1.3mpeople reached in 2035
7.3mcumulative care encounters over the horizon
171chaplains embedded in clinical teams
72clinician-years a year handed back from paperwork by AMDana and IPMS
  1. 2868 26
  2. 55133 27
  3. 81196 28
  4. 105256 29
  5. 129314 30
  6. 152369 31
  7. 174423 32
  8. 195474 33
  9. 215523 34
  10. 235570 35
Practising under the CHHI model Same graduates, conventional retention

2.28 practising CHHI clinicians per 100,000 people across a footprint of 25m, against 0.94 in the comparison scenario.

This counts CHHI-trained clinicians only. It is a measure of what this programme adds, not of total health workforce density in the region.

Methodology

What this model does, and what it refuses to claim.

Each year the practising pool gains that year's graduates multiplied by the retention rate, and loses the stated share of everyone already in it. Reach is the practising pool multiplied by the per-clinician annual panel. The comparison line runs the identical graduate output at the comparison retention rate — same training, same attrition, different retention — because that is the variable under dispute.

Fixed constants, stated so you can object to them: the first cohort year is 2026; a clinical year is 46 working weeks after leave, training days and public holidays; a clinician-year is 1,800 hours; the density benchmark CHHI plans against is 100 practising clinicians per 100,000. Chaplains accrue on the same retention and attrition logic as clinicians.

What it is not

  • Not a forecast. No probability is attached to any figure on this page.
  • Not a funding commitment. Nothing here states a cost per clinician or a budget.
  • Not total workforce density. It counts CHHI-trained clinicians and nothing else.
  • Not a claim about health outcomes. Encounters are a measure of access, not of whether anyone got better.
  • Not calibrated against a published national dataset. The defaults are CHHI's planning assumptions, and independent evaluation is exactly what the academic partnerships are for.

Baseline population, physician density and emigration figures for Nigeria vary substantially by source and by year. Rather than quote one and treat it as settled, this model puts the footprint population in your hands as an input and reports only what the programme itself adds.

Fund the retention, not just the training.

Cohort sponsorship, hub commissioning, equipment, platform and independent evaluation. Bring your own assumptions; we will show you ours.

Partner with CHHI How the model works