This issue has been raised a number of times in the past here in pprune if you look back far enough and each time I have been amazed by those people that dismiss this issue.
In my opinion, your ONLY option is to fly the Take-Off One-Engine-Inoperative procedure for that runway. Let me explain why.
Some days you might get away with following the published missed approach when the terrain is flat in the surrounding area and the tracking is straight ahead, or if there is a turn away from high terrain but this happens some distance past the upwind end of the runway. You would without a doubt be below the designed climb gradient, but this is of no consequence.
Some days you might get away with following a SID for that runway. This time at least you begin at an altitude above the minimum climb gradient required, but there is no guarantee that you will remain above this before reaching the MSA.
Remaining clear of terrain visually is fraught with danger too. I can think of at least one one-engine-inoperative procedure that requires tracking in one direction, then after some distance, a turn back to fly overhead the aerodrome. Interestingly, the procedure turns to the right whereas the SID turns to the left! Also to continue straight ahead visually and simply looking for the lowest saddle between two peaks on the horizon would almost certainly result in contact with terrain. Just because you can see it doesn't mean your not still destined to hit it.
And what are these people going to do at night eh??
No. The only way you are going to ensure terrain separation in every case is to study the engine-inoperative procedure for that runway during the approach briefing.
I would like to add too that not only is the tracking important, the acceleration altitude is also very important. Quite often it is the standard height of 800 ft above the runway (for my company at least), but there are also exceptions. The best example I can think of is Wellington NZ, RWY 34. From memory the ILS minima is 500 ft (actually it is now 430 ft). If you reject the landing at say 100 ft and decide to accelerate at 800 ft, you really do run the risk of flying in to the ridge line on the northern shore of the bay around . There are spot heights there of over 990 ft! The take-off performance charts for that runway are climb limited and require an acceleration not below 2000 ft!
Also the take-off limits for that runway are much lower than the structural landing weight limits. If you are departing AKL for the east coast of Australia in conditions below the landing minima, and therefore require a Return Airport other than AKL, you'd better have done your homework if you are going to divert to WLG after losing an engine above V1 in AKL. Rejecting a landing at a weight well above the MTOW for RWY 34, then accelerating 1200 ft below the minimum acceleration altitude is surely going to end in tears!
Do people still think it's not worthy of serious consideration?
And don't come back with a counter argument starting with the words "Yeah but what are the chances bla bla bla..."
Answer: 10^-6? 10^-8?? I don't know. But I would say it's just as likely as an engine failure at V1 and we all know how much effort goes in to having that scenario taken in to account.