Background Self-report is the best indicator of pain; however, pain is more difficult to assess in noncommunicative patients who may be receiving mechanical ventilation or sedated and unable to report pain. Objectives To evaluate the validity and sensitivity of 6 pain scales (Adult Nonverbal Pain Scale; Behavior Pain Scale [BPS]; Comfort Scale; FACES; Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scale; Pain Assessment Behavioral Scale with Numeric Rating Scale [NRP]) to identify the best measure of pain in noncommunicative patients. Methods Fifty communicative and 100 noncommunicative patients receiving mechanical ventilation were observed before and during routine physical examination and endotracheal tube suctioning. Results All pain scales had moderate to high correlations with the patient’s self-report during suctioning. The FACES score reported by the patient had the highest correlation with the patient’s NRP score ( r = 0.76, P < .001) during suctioning; associations between the BPS and NRP scores during physical examination were the weakest ( r = 0.21, P = .20). All scales were sensitive in capturing the patient’s pain response in all phases ( P < .001); sensitivity was higher during suctioning ( P < .001). Both participants and investigators rated pain higher on the FACES scale. Conclusions These pain scales commonly used in noncommunicative critically ill adult patients are valid and sensitive for capturing changes in pain response during suctioning in both communicative and noncommunicative patients. However, caution must be used when using the FACES scale because subjectivity may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of pain.

Objectives To determine the feasibility of continuous measurement of limb movement via wrist and ankle actigraphy (an activity measure) in critically ill patients and to compare actigraphy measurements with observed activity, subjective scores on sedation-agitation scales, and heart rate and blood pressure of patients. • Methods In a prospective, descriptive, correlational study, all activity of 20 adult patients in medical and coronary care units in a university medical center were observed for 2 hours and documented. Wrist and ankle actigraphy, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure data were collected every minute. The Comfort Scale and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were completed at the beginning of the observation period and 1 and 2 hours later. • Results Wrist actigraphy data correlated with scores on the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (r = 0.58) and the Comfort Scale (r = 0.62) and with observed stimulation and activity events of patients (r = 0.45). Correlations with systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressures were weaker. Wrist and ankle actigraphy data were significantly correlated (r = 0.69; P < .001); however, their mean values (wrist, 418; ankle, 147) were significantly different (t = 5.77; P < .001). • Conclusions Actigraphy provides a continuous recording of patients’ limb movement. Actigraphy measurements correlate well with patients’ observed activity and with subjective scores on agitation and sedation scales. Actigraphy may become particularly important as a continuous measurement of activity for use in behavioral research and may enhance early recognition and management of the excessive activity that characterizes agitation.