It's an interesting description and I understand the reasoning but it would be just as simple to describe him as "a psychic and a medium".
It's actually the first time I've 'heard' anyone justify the term 'psychic medium' and I accept it's offered in good faith BUT I can't help but think that it enables practitioners who can not
provide mediumship to describe themselves similarly. Then the term risks becoming confusing unless there's a clear explanation that psychic reading / counseling / empathy is NOT a demonstration of mediumship and survival.
But, then, I'm an insufferable purist who likes words to be clear and understandable.