A recent symposium on change management highlighted the relatively slow pace of change in the drug-use process. This study was undertaken to determine the degree of concordance between different sources that document levels of conformity with optimal drug-use processes. The primary objective was to compare aggregate national results from the Managing Medications Standards (MMS) of Accreditation Canada and results from the biennial Hospital Pharmacy in Canada survey. The secondary objective was to discuss any significant discrepancies between the 2 sources. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, attempts were made to pair each Accreditation Canada MMS criterion with specific results from the Hospital Pharmacy in Canada 2009/2010 Report. Average conformity per criterion from the 2010 Accreditation Canada on-site surveys was compared with conformity as documented in the Hospital Pharmacy in Canada 2009/2010 Report. A discrepancy ratio was calculated for each criterion, with ratios less than 0.80 or greater than 1.20 being considered significant. Overall, 82 (61%) of 134 MMS criteria could be paired with results from the 2009/2010 Hospital Pharmacy in Canada survey. The average calculated discrepancy ratio (± standard deviation) between the 2 sets of results was 0.62 ± 0.29 (range 0.05 to 1.19). The average discrepancy ratios by domain were as follows: 0.49 for safely administering medications, 0.58 for accurately preparing and dispensing medications, 0.61 for working together to promote medication safety, 0.62 for carefully selecting and procuring medications, 0.69 for monitoring quality and achieving positive results, 0.71 for appropriately ordering medications and transcribing medication orders, and 0.76 for properly labelling and storing medications. For 59 criteria, there was a significant discrepancy between the 2010 MMS on-site surveys and the 2009/2010 Hospital Pharmacy in Canada survey. Nearly two-thirds of the MMS criteria could be paired with results from the Hospital Pharmacy in Canada survey, but the average discrepancy ratio of 0.62 indicates substantial discrepancies in the data collected by these 2 methods. Further studies are required to explore the reasons for such discrepancies.