Abstract Background Effective handover is essential to safe surgical care, yet best practice guidance is limited. The literature is characterised by heterogenous reporting of outcomes, limiting evidence synthesis. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating interventions to improve surgical handover between doctors. Methods An international steering group, including surgical healthcare providers, researchers, and patient representatives, guided the process. A list of candidate outcomes was generated through two reviews of the literature. Outcome prioritisation, conducted via a real-time Delphi (RTD) survey of global stakeholders, was then conducted, followed by consensus meetings to finalise the COS. Results A systematic review of 41 quantitative studies identified 55 outcomes and a rapid review of 16 qualitative studies identified 28. After excluding process-related measures, 47 outcomes were included in the RTD survey. The survey was initiated by 500 participants from 41 countries (70.6% completion rate, n = 353), including 51 participants from 23 low- and middle-income countries. Healthcare providers (64.6%, n = 323) and public/patient representatives (21.6%, n = 108) were the largest stakeholder groups. Consensus was reached on eight core outcomes: mortality, changes in vital signs, occurrences of preventable adverse events, occurrences of medical errors, unexpected escalations in care, patient-reported quality of care, quality of the handover process, and staff experiences of the handover process. Conclusions This study presents a COS for evaluating interventions to improve handover between surgical doctors. Its use will help to standardise outcome reporting and support the generation of higher-quality evidence to inform future research and practice.
